43" TV 4k vs 1080p for gaming

[mx62]

I am going to use a 4K 65' 240hz TV

what kind of connection?
dont forget hdmi cant do 4k @240hz

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I have a Vizio 4k display (lacks built in tuner) and it has a PC option works great.

 

[mx62]

im gaming in a sony 49 xe 9005 and im pretty happy.
what you need to have in account
an gtx 1080 its the absolute minimum
even if tv support 100/120 hz the hdmi doesnt
even if tv has 10 bit color the hdmi cant do 4k full color @ 10 bit
after that all seems crispier and more precise in my opinion of course

I have yet to see a TV, any TV, provide a gaming image quality equal to what the best gaming monitors are capable of.

all oled tv beats any monitor by far in image quality

 

[lexluthermiester]

The days of smaller TVs having Satellite HD Decoder built-in are gone. ..RIP

Most people actually prefer a box outside the TV.

I have yet to see a TV, any TV, provide a gaming image quality equal to what the best gaming monitors are capable of.

While this is true, some get close enough to be very good, especially the ones with quality panels and HDR.

 

[delshay]

Most people actually prefer a box outside the TV.

I don't have the space, so my TV is wall mounted. Why have a external box when you can have it built-in. Did you know the decoder can pick up other satellite stations? I had to point this out to a salesman when I was buying a pair of earphones. It's listed as "other satellite" in the menu. There are a number of TVs that has this extra feature, not just Panasonic.

 

[15th Warlock]

I am going to use a 4K 65' 240hz TV

Dunno if this was mentioned before but TVs don't really display at 240Hz, they take a 60Hz signal and use interpolation to up the framerate at the advertised 240Hz.

And it looks like crap, I never use that on my TV, I set it to 60Hz and don't let the processor inside the TV mess up the image quality by adding frames that aren't really there.

 

[sepheronx]

I have an LG 4K 49" TV I got free from Telus when we got a 2 year contract. Anyway, I have my alienware x51 with a GTX1060 6gb attached to it and have it set to 1080p. Of course it required some scaling to be done as the TV stretched the background to beyond the bezel thus couldn't see everything. After some adjustments, I decided to try out Resident Evil 2 Remake on it and Dragons Quest 11 and it looks fantastic. RE2R has HDR set and doesn't look blurry. If I sit too far away from the screen then I have trouble reading it but that is just mostly due to eyesight I think. When I sit closer up, it is only mild blurry. Otherwise, gaming and watching movies on it are perfectly fine.

 

[Vayra86]

Unfortunately a lot of TVs still do the upscaling, regardless, it looks better than on a native 1080p TV of same size simply because you can't see the pixel structure. I can genuinely spot the pixels even as far back as 2-3m for a 1080p TV larger than ~43 inch.

This, it is too often overlooked, case in point this thread and the many responses that are obviously lacking the practical experience. I've had this too with a, in fact several different 720p HDTVs. The pixel mapping is not perfect at all, more often than not, and no amount of tweaks get you there. This has to do with HD standards. We had 720p but many panels were made as 1366x768 to display 1080i content. Right now with 4K we have similar problems with 3840x2160 versus 4096x2160.

Many TVs have an internal scaler that screws everything up. Its the reason many TVs will cut off some edges (overscan/underscan as you see it on AMD cards as well until you change that in settings) by default and you need to resort to your PC/GPUs image rescale functions to get it right. Byebye perfect pixel map & hello blur.

When it comes to resolution, always aim for native res. Any upscale or downscale will be noticeable and will always lose to perfect pixel mapped images. For TVs this may mean you are going to create a custom res that is neither 1080p or 4K native, but something slightly adjusted to fix it. But even then, it won't always work well.

Another aspect of TVs with higher >50-60hz refresh rates, is that they use interpolation to achieve the higher refresh rates. More often than not, this function will royally screw with your image quality. Things like crosshairs will blur right along with the interpolated images creating lots of artifacts.

On top of that, TVs suffer from, easily, 7-10x higher input lag than a monitor. This is noticeable and comparable to console gaming with forced Vsync at low FPS. Even though images are smooth to look at, they don't play as such. If you come from a PC with monitor, its going to take some time to adjust to that and you can kiss any competitive edge goodbye.


Bottom line, TV may look attractive but its really meant for watching TV and casual gaming. If that's what you do, go for it. If you do more, avoid like the plague. Another thing is that resolution, at some point, is overrated and not quite as relevant as people make it out to be. An important factor in that is view distance. If you sit at arm's length from the screen, a PPI of about 120-150 is more than enough to be unable to see pixels, and 90~92 PPI is 'acceptable' (=equals 1080p/24inch at about 60-70cm distance). Take the measurements and see if 4K actually pays off for you. Its quite an investment to get the GPU grunt to match.

 

[londiste]

There is one situation where 1080p on a 4K TV might be worth it - there are a bunch of TVs that support a real 120Hz input at 1080p.

Forget all the talk about 240Hz or 480Hz or other marketing frequency figures. TVs support 50/60Hz, better TVs do 100/120Hz and only some TVs allow input for 100/120Hz signal. There is some benefit for 100/120Hz TVs for 50/60Hz input but that in turn means turning on image processing that increases input lag.

Input lag is not an issue given you do research and keep away from notoriously bad TV models. Most TVs have a PC/Gaming mode for (at least some) inputs that will minimize input lag to tolerable levels. Not to the level of a fast gaming monitor but well within the input lag range of an average if not good monitor.

As for OP's specifical question - do you plan to sit farther away from the screen with the 43" TV as opposed to a monitor? Leaving the resolution/upscaling problems aside, the diagonal of a monitor matters a lot. I did gaming for a little while on a 43" 4K TV. Going from 27" monitor to 43" TV was quite a shock when used at only slightly further away compared to where I was looking at the monitor. Immersion was definitely better but I had to start moving my head to look at the corners of the screens. For fast shooters and competitive stuff a very definite no-no but this frankly became tiring even when playing slower-paced games.

 

[Dbiggs9]

what kind of connection?
dont forget hdmi cant do 4k @240hz

HDMI - I will run the highest it will let me, It's a Samsung Q series

 

[lexluthermiester]

There is one situation where 1080p on a 4K TV might be worth it - there are a bunch of TVs that support a real 120Hz input at 1080p.

This is an excellent point!

 

[Dbiggs9]

How would I use 120hz and FreeSync on My TV it says it supports it but settings is grayed out

Found it in tv setting

 

[lexluthermiester]

How would I use 120hz and FreeSync on My TV it says it supports it but settings is grayed out

Found it in tv setting

With some TV's, you have to set the device/game system to 120hz before the TV will allow the setting to enable.

 

[amit_talkin]

I am on 40' 4k TV with 1080Ti. It looks amazing!

 

[qubit]

Dunno if this was mentioned before but TVs don't really display at 240Hz, they take a 60Hz signal and use interpolation to up the framerate at the advertised 240Hz.

And it looks like crap, I never use that on my TV, I set it to 60Hz and don't let the processor inside the TV mess up the image quality by adding frames that aren't really there.

What?! I use it all the time, as I can't stand the judder and blur from 25fps video (UK PAL system). Indeed it's not perfect though and artefacts are often intermittently visible.

Interestingly, when I watch football, that's always shown at the full 50 fields per second, so the action is nice and smooth (lots of motion blur from the camera, but that can't be helped). However, whenever the sports channel shows replays during half time or either side of the game, they then drop the framerate by half, resulting in that awful judder. No idea why the hell they do it since it looks like crap. Turn on frame interpolation however and it's much better, but I can clearly see a difference when compared to the full 50 fields per second, even without specific artefacts visible.

IMO motion interpolation is a decent compromise, but what should really happen is that everything is shown at the full 50Hz framerate (60Hz for America). Can't see it happening though.

 

[Vya Domus]

Dunno if this was mentioned before but TVs don't really display at 240Hz, they take a 60Hz signal and use interpolation to up the framerate at the advertised 240Hz.

To my knowledge 240hz TVs don't exist, they pretty much straight up lie and the panel itself it's either 60hz or 120hz. What you are saying doesn't really make sense though, if it's 240hz, then that means it does display at that refresh rate irrespective of the interpolation feature.

 

[SoNic67]

No idea why the hell they do it since it looks like crap.

Because when they send 50Hz, it's not full HD, only 720p. Bandwidth doesn't allow it. In studio, static or slow movement, 25-30 FPS are enough.

panel itself it's either 60hz or 120hz

True. The true 120Hz are hard to find, usually they are older models, "3D" capable. The rest of them, to get 4x frame rate are "flashing" the back light 4 times per each field.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/fak...otion-rate-vs-sony-motionflow-vs-lg-trumotion

 

[qubit]

Because when they send 50Hz, it's not full HD, only 720p. Bandwidth doesn't allow it. In studio, static or slow movement, 25-30 FPS are enough.

No, I doubt that's true. This is Sky Sports HD we're talking about here. No way are they gonna restrict the transmission bandwidth like that on a premium channel and I would be able to clearly see it if they did. Have you got any links to support your assertion? They're not the only channel where I see this, though.

Some of the graphics animations are done at half framerate too, while others run at full, which makes me facepalm too.

The sporting segments I'm talking about being shown at 25fps are always high action/speed ones too, where the half framerate issue becomes really chronic. I suspect that they do this, because it makes it look "filmic" - that pathetic excuse for using a low framerate that so many film makers use.

 

[AvrageGamr]

All depends on the type of games you play. I switched from a 37 inch 1080p to a 40 inch 4k and a 1070 back in 2016. I play a lot of open world games and 4k blows the doors off of 1080p. However, if you play a lot of games like Crash Bandicoot or others with cartoon graphics, then switching to 4k is pointless.

 

[SoNic67]

I suspect that they do this, because it makes it look "filmic" - that pathetic excuse for using a low framerate that so many film makers use.

Here in US we have 30 and 60 FPS. In this day and age, I don't know why EU satellite stations keep hanging on the 25/50, that's a relict from analog TV times. Any HDTV now is just a big screen computer. You don't run the PC screen at 50Hz because you live in EU, then why the TV?
Anyway, 50 versus 25 means doubling the data rate. So you either keep the same compression and reduce vertical resolution or... keep the same resolution but you apply a more aggressive compression algorithms (that will affect the effective horizontal resolution). Usually they prefer not to increase compression, because those artifacts are more distracting than anything.
This was a choice here when ATSC standard (over the air) was developed - news stations got 1080i60 while sports stations got 720p60, for motion fluidity. Those were the only options, both encoded MPEG2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards

Satellite TV and IPTV, have better compression standards, but are still bandwidth limited:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IPTV/comments/8efm61

 

[qubit]

Here in US we have 30 and 60 FPS. In this day and age, I don't know why EU satellite stations keep hanging on the 25/50, that's a relict from analog TV times. Any HDTV now is just a big screen computer. You don't run the PC screen at 50Hz because you live in EU, then why the TV?
Anyway, 50 versus 25 means doubling the data rate. So you either keep the same compression and reduce vertical resolution or... keep the same resolution but you apply a more aggressive compression algorithms (that will affect the effective horizontal resolution). Usually they prefer not to increase compression, because those artifacts are more distracting than anything.
This was a choice here when ATSC standard (over the air) was developed - news stations got 1080i60 while sports stations got 720p60, for motion fluidity. Those were the only options, both encoded MPEG2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards

Satellite TV and IPTV, have better compression standards, but are still bandwidth limited:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IPTV/comments/8efm61

EU satellite TV runs at 50Hz interlaced for compatibility, it's as simple as that. It's also the same signal as on terrestrial Freeview, but from the satellite and of course, more channels and content. It's the same in America, where the original TV standard was 60Hz, so they've kept that. The basic reason is that it's easy enough to interpolate from any spatial resolution to any other and still have the picture look good, but it's a bitch interpolating from one framerate (temporal resolution) to another, unless it's a multiple, often resulting in highly noticeable and uneven judder and other artefacts, depending on exact circumstance.

I don't know what they do with the resolution for sports over in America, but as I said before, they don't do that over here. It's a full 1080i50 picture the whole time. Sure, there's compression going on and there are a certain amount of artefacts from it, but it's still 1080i50.

"Any HDTV now is just a big screen computer". Yeah, I was fiddling about with my new Sony 43" 4K TV running Android the other day and it felt exactly like a giant tablet without a touchscreen. All that needed was to add that and it would be just a glorified tablet, lol.

 

[15th Warlock]

To my knowledge 240hz TVs don't exist, they pretty much straight up lie and the panel itself it's either 60hz or 120hz. What you are saying doesn't really make sense though, if it's 240hz, then that means it does display at that refresh rate irrespective of the interpolation feature.

Read my post again, and you’ll realize that’s exactly what I’m saying in it, no TV is capable of displaying at 240Hz or even higher advertised refresh rates, it’s a gimmick, and borders on false advertising.

As a matter of fact, I wasn’t the one proposing that TVs display at 240Hz, the OP mentioned he planned to use his tv to play at 4K 240Hz (literally impossible even with high end monitors) and I was informing him this advertised feature doesn’t even display such high frame rates as you would expect from real a high end gaming monitor.

You can read more in this article:

The fact is that nearly all of these new 4K TVs -- which now make up the increasing majority of all TVs priced over $1,000 in the US -- have, at best, a 120Hz refresh rate. Actually, many of the least expensive 4K sets are 60Hz, and none that we know about are 240Hz.

You may be asking yourself, what's with all the 4K TV marketing that claims numbers of 240 or even higher? Well, they're fluff. Very carefully worded marketing fluff, in most cases.

https://www.cnet.com/news/ultra-hd-4k-tv-refresh-rates/

No one in their right mind should ever consider these advertised refresh rates as the real deal.

 

[delshay]

For me when it comes to image quality, I find the best settings is to switch off all the fancy features. I set them to disable if in the menu, & auto if disable is not available. It's been this way after a few day's when i bought the TV many year's ago, & I have never looked back at all the fancy picture settings. Note, this is my personal preference which works best for me.

Panasonic TX-L32D25.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

1080p ultra settings is absolutely pointless ,You can't see a 4k texture adequately in 1080p to be worth using the setting, 4k can be made to work well in most games ,Give it a go Op , you can easily run it at lower resolutions , it's capable.

To me the main point is do You Want the Tv , what else matters.

After using it you will adjust your gaming preferances to suit.

 

[27MaD]

4K-TV@1080p

Pixelated.