Should I switch to monitor from TV or upgrade TV ?

[Temuka]

Hello everybody ! I'm in dilemma of what to do with my room setup. I'm going to build new pc when z390 boards and 9th generation of Intel will launch but also I'm going to upgrade my tb. The situation is like this:

I have my own bedroom (it's also my living room) which is almost 250 square feet. I own full hd 55' lg TV and I use it to play games and surf the web from 10 feet from my bed because I find that comfy and I like big screen (also I don't watch TV programs) Since I will be upgrading my PC to something much powerful (9700k + 1080ti/2080) I find that there is sense to upgrade to new resolution of TV/monitor. Options are :
1) Buy some expensive 4K TV (55' or 65') and use it the same way I'm doing it now;
2) Buy not expensive 4k TV and use it for movies/browsing + buy some nice 1440p monitor for gaming with some desk and try chair/desk/monitor gaming if I can call that like that
In number 2 I guess I can connect both (TV + monitor) to PC for using for different situations ?
I understand that with TV I will be getting only 60hz but I don't really like the idea of sitting very close to monitor which is also very small

I have space in my room for TV + desk with monitor if that is a concern

So fellas,what should you do in my situation or what you can advise me ? thanks in advance

I'm open to any questions which will make the situation more clear or maybe will make decision simpler,cheers.

p.s sorry for bad English,actually it's my 3rd language )))

 

[mnewsham]

At 10 feet, you might as well just use a cheap 4k TV since it will look like 1080p anyway

4k looks great, but at 10 feet you need a MASSIVE 4k screen in order to actually take advantage of the resolution benefits. Realistically a 4k TV at 55-65" screen size should be ~4-5.5 feet away. Not 10 feet.

So if you're dead set on a 10 foot viewing distance, don't bother spending a ton of money on a high end 4k TV since you wont actually be able to see much difference compared to 1080p at that distance.

 

[Temuka]

At 10 feet, you might as well just use a cheap 4k TV since it will look like 1080p anyway

4k looks great, but at 10 feet you need a MASSIVE 4k screen in order to actually take advantage of the resolution benefits. Realistically a 4k TV at 55-65" screen size should be ~4-5.5 feet away. Not 10 feet.

So if you're dead set on a 10 foot viewing distance, don't bother spending a ton of money on a high end 4k TV since you wont actually be able to see much difference compared to 1080p at that distance.

So you recommend 2nd variant?

 

[mnewsham]

So you recommend 2nd variant?

Yes. Or not even bother upgrading to 4k unless your current TV is broken or something.

 

[Temuka]

Yes. Or not even bother upgrading to 4k unless your current TV is broken or something.

Why?

 

[mnewsham]

Why?

Look at the chart I posted above. 4k at 65" looks identical to 1080p beyond ~8 feet. If you're sat 10 feet back, it'll appear to be 1080p quality even if the panel is 4k.
So if you already have a 1080p 55-65" TV, there really isn't much reason to upgrade for you.

 

[Temuka]

Look at the chart I posted above. 4k at 65" looks identical to 1080p beyond ~8 feet. If you're sat 10 feet back, it'll appear to be 1080p quality even if the panel is 4k.
So if you already have a 1080p 55-65" TV, there really isn't much reason to upgrade for you.

Well that's not quite true. Because first off all,as I have asked to several people even fullhd content is better quality on 4k TV than on Fullhd TV,second is that my tv is 7 year old model and don't you think that some 2018 model 4k TV will provide much better colors,local dimming,contrast etc than my TV? I doubt that

 

[shortylickens]

Do TV's run at 144hz?

Cuz OP said he was into gaming.

 

[UsandThem]

I understand that with TV I will be getting only 60hz but I don't really like the idea of sitting very close to monitor which is also very small

I'm open to any questions which will make the situation more clear or maybe will make decision simpler,cheers.

Well that's not quite true. Because first off all,as I have asked to several people even fullhd content is better quality on 4k TV than on Fullhd TV,second is that my tv is 7 year old model and don't you think that some 2018 model 4k TV will provide much better colors,local dimming,contrast etc than my TV? I doubt that

It sounds like you have already made up your mind on what you want to do. Why not just buy the big 4k TV and be done with it?

 

[mnewsham]

Well that's not quite true. Because first off all,as I have asked to several people even fullhd content is better quality on 4k TV than on Fullhd TV,second is that my tv is 7 year old model and don't you think that some 2018 model 4k TV will provide much better colors,local dimming,contrast etc than my TV? I doubt that

I mean, numbers don't lie buddy, believe whatever you want, but at 10 feet you wont notice any difference in resolution. Brightness, contrast, etc are another matter entirely. And I never said anything about that.

The only point I am making is, 4k gets you basically nothing resolution-wise, you're simply sitting too far away to see the pixels.

 

[Lordhumungus]

I mean, numbers don't lie buddy, believe whatever you want, but at 10 feet you wont notice any difference in resolution. Brightness, contrast, etc are another matter entirely. And I never said anything about that.

The only point I am making is, 4k gets you basically nothing resolution-wise, you're simply sitting too far away to see the pixels.

It may not buy him much/any visual fidelity, but since he is using it as a monitor it might buy him some screen real estate. Just playing the Devil's Advocate here.

 

[mnewsham]

It may not buy him much/any visual fidelity, but since he is using it as a monitor it might buy him some screen real estate. Just playing the Devil's Advocate here.

Not at that distance. You wouldn't be able to read anything, you'd have to GUI scale to 200% and 200% of 4k is 1080p.

I use a 43" 4k monitor with 100% GUI scale at 2-2.5 feet viewing distance. 10 feet is just not feasible, even at 65".

 

[Lordhumungus]

Not at that distance. You wouldn't be able to read anything, you'd have to GUI scale to 200% and 200% of 4k is 1080p.

I use a 43" 4k monitor with 100% GUI scale at 2-2.5 feet viewing distance. 10 feet is just not feasible, even at 65".

While I think this is a really definitive statement and believe there is much more nuance that would go into it, I took a few minutes to overly THX recommended viewing distances to the chart you supplied and it does seem to support this.

What is interesting to me is according to how everything works out, 4K basically never matters unless it's a monitor, which to my point, I wonder how true that actually is in practice.

Pardon how primitive this is, I have 0 artistic skills.

 

[DigDog]

The answer is "different games require different setups".

To play Gran Turismo or God Of War (casual, highly immersive, cinematic games) you want a big TV and a couch.
To play hardcore games like Counterstrike or Quake Campions you want a good monitor, like a 27" 144hz.

No reason to spend much money on high quality TV, even 2k is ok.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

While I think this is a really definitive statement and believe there is much more nuance that would go into it, I took a few minutes to overly THX recommended viewing distances to the chart you supplied and it does seem to support this.

What is interesting to me is according to how everything works out, 4K basically never matters unless it's a monitor, which to my point, I wonder how true that actually is in practice.

Pardon how primitive this is, I have 0 artistic skills.

Your post made me think of a game I played on my PS4 called Nioh. I have a 40 inch 1080p TV that I sit about 6.5 to 8 feet from while gaming and I couldn't really tell a difference in the graphics in the performance mode (dynamic resolution, but mostly 720p60) vs the cinematic mode (1080p30) other than the framerate. Makes me not want to upgrade my GTX 970 (I do most of my PC gaming on that TV also) unless I get a 65 inch TV first. Especially with how garbage Turing is for the money. Makes me also think I should drop to 1600x900 for really gpu intensive games like Final Fantasy XV to maintain a locked 60 fps.

 

[nathanddrews]

Based upon your initial post - and depending on your budget - I would get a budget/midrange 4K HDR TV and a quality gaming monitor. Currently in the same room, I'm running a 21" CRT and a 65" 4K TV (descriptions in signature). The monitor wins - without question - simply because it's much more comfortable to use my mouse and keyboard at my desk, sitting upright, than trying to game from the couch. The game matters, obviously. My jam right now - Destiny 2 (the new updates are amazing) on PC - looks amazing in HDR on my 65" TV no matter the resolution, but I couldn't stay comfortable for very long. On the other hand, my CRT offers exceptional image quality at ~3ft away with high refresh rates and buttery smoothness. If I'm playing Xbone X, then I love some couch co-op on the 65". Can't see any pixels from ~7ft away, but everything is sharp as a tack and the additional color volume provided by the wide color gamut and HDR provide a superior image over any 1080p display that I've seen from any distance.

FWIW, those seating distance charts are mostly academic. I have seen iterations of this chart for the last 25 years - often posted by people bashing new display tech. The same old arguments of "there's no 1080p content", etc. While factually correct, the chart fails to take into account arguably the most important factors: specifically user preference and use case. LOL I still remember playing GoldenEye 007 on N64 on my first projector - a Sharp 640x480 LCD projector the size of suitcase. Pixels the size of golf balls - no one cared.

 

[mnewsham]

those seating distance charts are mostly academic

No, they're just misunderstood, by most people, seemingly yourself as well.

They're not meant to be the end all and be all, they're simply supposed to tell you where the resolution benefit starts/begins for the panel size and resolution at any given distance.
That has NO bearing on contrast ratio, brightness, panel tech, viewing angles, etc, etc. Of COURSE you need to take all factors into consideration, that chart has NOTHING to do with all factors, it ONLY attempts to tackle the resolution/seating distance/panel size problem. That doesn't mean you ignore it. That means you take ALL factors into consideration before making your choice.

 

[nathanddrews]

No, they're just misunderstood, by most people, seemingly yourself as well.

They're not meant to be the end all and be all, they're simply supposed to tell you where the resolution benefit starts/begins for the panel size and resolution at any given distance.
That has NO bearing on contrast ratio, brightness, panel tech, viewing angles, etc, etc. Of COURSE you need to take all factors into consideration, that chart has NOTHING to do with all factors, it ONLY attempts to tackle the resolution/seating distance/panel size problem. That doesn't mean you ignore it. That means you take ALL factors into consideration before making your choice.

Academic, as I stated. No misunderstanding here, not sure what you're arguing with me about. Is our point of contention with the value/weight of the chart in the decision making process? I suppose we could take that into a separate PM discussion unless the OP is interested.

 

[Seba]

At 10 feet (3 meters) viewing distance, you must have unusually good eyesight to distinguish between a 55" 1920x1080 and a 55" 3840x2160 display (assuming all the other things - such as panel type, contrast ratio - would be the similar).

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't really know about those distance / seating / resolution charts. Yeah, I've seen 'em. Don't pay much attention.

I've got a pair (on separate PCs) of 40" 4K UHD TVs, 2016-ish I think. Bought them BF from Newegg on ebay, for ~$210 ea., best upgrade (that I can recall in recent times) that I've done to my PCs, hands-down. (Previous best, would be: DVD-ROM player, to watch DVDs, and DVD-RW drive.)

 

[Viper GTS]

I don't really know about those distance / seating / resolution charts. Yeah, I've seen 'em. Don't pay much attention.

I've got a pair (on separate PCs) of 40" 4K UHD TVs, 2016-ish I think. Bought them BF from Newegg on ebay, for ~$210 ea., best upgrade (that I can recall in recent times) that I've done to my PCs, hands-down. (Previous best, would be: DVD-ROM player, to watch DVDs, and DVD-RW drive.)

Can confirm, going big 4K is absolutely the best PC upgrade I have done in decades. Have been on a 50" 4K for almost four years now at home, and 43" at work for a few as well. There is simply no comparison and I did many years of big multi-display setups culminating in 3x2560x1440. A single 4K is so incredibly superior in every way.

Viper GTS

 

[mnewsham]

Can confirm, going big 4K is absolutely the best PC upgrade I have done in decades. Have been on a 50" 4K for almost four years now at home, and 43" at work for a few as well. There is simply no comparison and I did many years of big multi-display setups culminating in 3x2560x1440. A single 4K is so incredibly superior in every way.

Viper GTS

At desktop viewing distance I agree.

Not at 10 feet though.

 

[BurnItDwn]

At 10 feet, you would be best served with a 100+ inch projector.
Since that is likely outside of budget, and will require moedification to the room, I would instead recommend simply moving the TV closer to you.
Or, if you want to spend the money, get the biggest TV in your price range.

 

[Alamat]

I use a 43" 4k TV as a monitor and while its great at desktop distance, I am not actually sold on getting larger ones like 65" for a 10 foot viewing distance. I agree that a pj with a minimum of 100" would be best for 10 feet or more viewing distance.

 

[capsulej]

Id recommend the monitor+tv. Ive never liked using tvs as monitors due to the text issues.