Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by happy, Apr 25, 2012.
Hi guys, so since a 70" is quite big for a tv. Wouldn't vRam matter for a GPU?
Depends on the res.
Just regular 1080p. I plan on playing BF3 on the 70" using a 7950. Let's say I'm getting 65 fps on a 24" 1080p right now, it wouldn't make a difference for a 70" right? I'm just curious before I purchase a 70" LED TV.
Using the TV for games, or just watching movies?
you want plasma on a any tv above 55" LCDs are terrible
So fps will remain the same? But it will just look terrible on any tv 55" and above? If so, thanks for the pointer. I don't want to drop so much on something that will not look good while watching moves and playing games.
Its about res. for gaming and VRAM. I have a 52" LCD that would make you cry with beauty in picture quality. I wouldn't worry to much. If its 1080P depending on the game 1280 MB is enough.....in most cases. However some games like GTA love more. I run BF3 with everything on Ultra and no AA perfectly fine at 1920x1080. I wouldnt do that with GTA.
How large is the room the TV will be in (distance from TV while viewing)?
Bigger is not always better when it comes to viewing experience.
As for Vram, I normally get 2GB cards regardless of the use, especially at work where most people do nothing but desktop appliations.
Why? Because if the card on my workstation takes a crap I can steal someone else's and give them any old junk and they won't know the difference.
+1 to TMM. I dont care if its a 100" screen or 32" Its the resolution that matters.
Yea, you are right that 1080p is 1080p no matter what size the screen is, so it gives the same fps and uses the same Vram, whether it be 21" or 165"
If it's 1080p (ie the resolution) it makes no difference re image quality as to whether it's 22" or 70".
In actual fact, you might even see that IQ is worse on 70" than a 22"...
You might need to stay at a distance to play games and watch movies on a 70" 1080p monitor though.
Thanks for the input. It is greatfully appreciated. Viewing distance is about 9-12 feet from my couch. I will be using one of the Xbox 360 wireless controller to play BF3 and hopefully also control my media collection.
9 to 12'? I wouldnt go much bigger the 52" honestly man. 60" max.
You'd want more like 5 meters (~16 feet) for such a big screen.
Would you suggest plasma or led for my purpose?
It's such a good deal though.
All for $1,000 flat NEW!!
Is it the Sharp 70" LCD? If so it's one of the worst options out there for overall image quality. Basically a step above dynex. You get what you pay for on that.
in the sub 60" range you have a few major variables.
1. incoming light. If the room is bright, and has direct light coming through windows get an LED, plasmas have a glass screen and reflect terribly. A plasma with direct light on it acts more like a mirror than a tv.
2. Plasmas will typically run a bit cheaper at the larger size so that's something to consider as well.
3. Power consumption is a non-issue now. Panasonic Vt30 (I think that's the model) for a 60" size uses so little power it's sickening (it's plasma btw).
edit: where do you see that TV coming in at $1k from the link you gave????
At those sizes I prefer LCD or LED. Some of the new plasmas are nice but produce a little to much heat for my taste. I like LED.
From a wholesaler I know in my area. I bought many HT from him.
Difficult to pass up that price, but I think if you downsize a little bit you can get exponentially better quality
that's my plasma recommendation.
I agree. I would down size a little for better quality of picture. Plasma......meh. Not a plasma fan. IMO I prefer LED. With that being said I agree with jasper1605
I'm definitely a big fan of LED's as well MM. The only problem w/ the design on them is that they have bad viewing angles too. I like to host movie nights w/ lots of people and the side viewing angles while definitely visible, do not have the same color depth that center sitting people do. Plasmas don't have that issue (or at least nowhere near as much if they do).
All that said, I own an LED because it was much cheaper/Samsung gave me a free upgrade to it from the LCD which was even cheaper than comparative plasmas
Oh and PS: a larger screen will not be a negative thing for VRAM as was stated earlier in the discussions. All the TV does is take the 0s and 1s it gets from the graphics card and makes them into pretty colors. That 0,1 --> color processing is handled by the TVs processor and not the GPU of the computer so you'll be fine.
Final edit: But if you MUST have 70" and budget isn't an issue (like at all). Then here's your TV. http://www.eastcoasttvs.com/Sharp-ELITE-LED-HDTV-p/pro70x5fd.htm I wrote a review on this set when it first came out and docked it something huge for it's motion processing, but that has since been addressed and fixed and is now one of the premiere TVs available. Never have I seen such good color reproduction on a set in all of my days.
Too bad plasmas are power suckers. My electricity bill is going through the roof!
false. That's old news with them. The panasonic I first linked you to is (IMO) very efficient. It's stated estimate power usage was 30 bucks a year. Not too shabby if you ask me.
That's misinformation (not from you). What's the average hour/day usage for that annual figure?
If they gave a figure of X watt/hour, then they'd be giving proper information, IMO.
Allow me a couple of examples:
Look here: this awesome TV only uses $30 worth of electricity a year providing it's on roughly 30 minutes a day on average.
How about this TV: only consumes $30 worth of electricity a year (average use of 4 hours/day).
Separate names with a comma.