Hi all

My friend wants to buy a 32 inches tv for his home. it will be mainly for gaming, his budget is 500$, what do you guys recommend ? and should he buy a monitor instead since he will plug it to his pc ? and it should be available in Lebanon since shipping is not an option.

Take care
If he needs a monitor, he needs to get a monitor and not a TV.

Would you buy a Soda if you wanted a 7UP?
AvoK95 wroteIf he needs a monitor, he needs to get a monitor and not a TV.

Would you buy a Soda if you wanted a 7UP?
I use a Sony EX-650 32" as my PC screen, and it works beautifully. No problems or shadows or shading whatsoever. Heck it works better than my previous 23" Full HD Samsung.

You want PC gaming? You need to go big; believe me it makes a difference.
Mrclass what kind of frame rate do you have? Do you experience screen tearing?
MrClass wroteI use a Sony EX-650 32" as my PC screen, and it works beautifully. No problems or shadows or shading whatsoever. Heck it works better than my previous 23" Full HD Samsung.
I second that, you can't go wrong with SONY monitors, great quality products.
He wants to buy a TV to use as a monitor? I don't think that's a good idea. The feed will be more pixelated and the refresh rates are not what the TV tells you they are. If you're looking at the refresh rate, buy a PC monitor that has a 120Hz refresh rate, although that is going to cost much more than $500. The HDTVs that claim 120/240Hz refresh rates do not actually have those refresh rates. They all have and can only accept 60Hz refresh rates. The 120/240Hz stand for some TV video processing technology that creates extra frames to make the feed look smother. Also, using an HDTV at the distance of where a PC monitor us usually places is a huge strain on the eyes because the brightness levels of an HDTV are meant to be used with greater view distance.
TV:
- more input lag (some have game mode but unsure if it removes input lag)
- possible overscan / underscan issues if the TV does not have a "PC" DVI / HDMI input (signal conversion for colorspaces)
- Very few are 120Hz, they're locked to 60Hz - forget about the motion plus or whatever they call it, it's still receiving a 60Hz signal
- They can be VERY off in terms of color.
- How can you focus on a large TV if you're playing FPS with a mouse and keyboard?
+ good TVs are usually IPS, PC monitors are generally TN. IPS > TN. Wider viewing angles, better colors (except the TVs that like to go whacko with saturation or whatever, should be configurable).
+ Big screen for entertainment
+ Plasma TVs have incredible color quality but obviously plasma has its own drawbacks which I will not cover here

Considering that I got a Qnix QX2710 2560x1440 PLS panel 27" Korean monitor for $400 (you can find it for ~$300) and it cost $70 to get it here (paid customs and taxes), that's $470. I am running it at 110Hz. So that's 2560 x 1440 110Hz (needs hefty GPU horsepower). Kills Apple Cinema Display. So...

I wouldn't game on an HDTV, personally. Although I probably would prefer a TV for when I'm laid back and playing some 3rd-person game with a controller (AC, Batman, etc...).
I would buy a monitor if I were you, the quality if way better than a TV, most important thing you should consider before buying is reading the reviews, not every monitor gives you HD, even if they say it come with full HD etc. most of them are liars.
If you want to buy a monitor you should consider the following (color accuracy,responsiveness "you wouldn't want the game to be too ghosty when moving around",and of course the input lag "if you're into online gaming).
I would recommend buying the Viewsonic VX-2770SMH 27” LED Full HD $459.00 from pcandparts, it's the most decent I've seen by far on the website.
Plus I would also recommend reading some professional reviews, if you have your eyes set on a specific monitor http://www.digitalversus.com/.
I'm also in the market search for a new monitor, pcandparts doesn't have a big variety, so if you guys know some decent shops let know.
I would appreciate the help.

Sorry, I meant the HD experience not the whole HD, like it wouldn't be pleasant experience when the monitor isn't responsive enough to accurately produce rapid movements on screen, limiting its use for anything other than office work or relatively undemanding platform games and also when the color accuracy is low enough it show a purple tinge.
Ahmad90 wroteI would buy a monitor if I were you, the quality if way better than a TV, most important thing you should consider before buying is reading the reviews, not every monitor gives you HD, even if they say it come with full HD etc. most of them are liars.
They lie when saying "Full HD"? All Full HD monitors are 1080p or 1200p. There is no exception.
If you want to buy a monitor you should consider the following (color accuracy,responsiveness "you wouldn't want the game to be too ghosty when moving around",and of course the input lag "if you're into online gaming).
I would recommend buying the Viewsonic VX-2770SMH 27” LED Full HD $459.00 from pcandparts, it's the most decent I've seen by far on the website.
There's also the LG 24EA53V-P, AH-IPS panel. I haven't checked professional reviews but being AH-IPS, it should be good for a start. Don't know if this uses a grainy coating or not, since LG has a tendency to provide panels with grainy coatings to the likes of Dell, HP, etc...

And TBH, Qnix QX2710 over that Viewsonic anyday. It's even cheaper. 2560x1440p 120Hz PLS panel.
correct me if am wrong, but at 32 inch screen I do not think he will be sitting this close, maybe like 2 meters away (for instance PS or Xbox gaming we don't stick to the screen like in PC gaming), and if so the very high resolution is actually more power hungry than useful, what details would u notice this far from the screen in a game, you will not be reading text after all, and the 60 Hz refresh rate is good enough unless you want 3D gaming, what's your GPU to be able to push that much frames anyway. I tried playing on a sharp aquos 32 inch ($320 I guess) not even full HD looked great from 3 m away and I was playing GRID 2 (very small speedometer)
alk wrotecorrect me if am wrong, but at 32 inch screen I do not think he will be sitting this close, maybe like 2 meters away (for instance PS or Xbox gaming we don't stick to the screen like in PC gaming), and if so the very high resolution is actually more power hungry than useful, what details would u notice this far from the screen in a game,
Yeah, maybe, but having the TV that far, how can you focus? I can't. It's either too close for comfort, or too far for actually focusing on what's happening.
you will not be reading text after all,
As long as text can be refined at a higher resolution, it means that the higher resolution will be beneficial to image quality.
and the 60 Hz refresh rate is good enough unless you want 3D gaming, what's your GPU to be able to push that much frames anyway.
Not really, no. 120Hz is so much smoother than 60Hz that when I dip to 60FPS it feels like it's stuttering. 60FPS constant is fine but you get MUCH smoother motion, MUCH less tearing (to the point of being eliminated visually), and MUCH less input lag.
I'm pushing 1440p 120Hz with 2x7970s (@1100MHz now).
yasamoka wrote
alk wroteand the 60 Hz refresh rate is good enough unless you want 3D gaming, what's your GPU to be able to push that much frames anyway.
Not really, no. 120Hz is so much smoother than 60Hz that when I dip to 60FPS it feels like it's stuttering. 60FPS constant is fine but you get MUCH smoother motion, MUCH less tearing (to the point of being eliminated visually), and MUCH less input lag.
I'm pushing 1440p 120Hz with 2x7970s (@1100MHz now).
It is not always about numbers, but if want to talk number the 7970 crossfired in lebanon cost more than $1400 at 120 Hz which means you would pay like $12 per Hz while a 660Ti for example you are paying about $7 per Hz at 60 Hz. I do not think the trade off is worth the extra cash (not to mention the bigger tower and extra cooling involved).
and I did not say a higher resolution is not better for image quality, I said it is more power hungry than useful. at 1080p you are pushing 2.073 MPix per frame at 1440p you will be pushing 3.686 MPix, that's 77% more than full HD for a better quality that you may not notice on a big screen TV.
If you have the extra cash for premium again it is worth it, but why spend this much on something you may end up not using, knowing that something better would come soon.
alk wrote
yasamoka wrote
alk wroteand the 60 Hz refresh rate is good enough unless you want 3D gaming, what's your GPU to be able to push that much frames anyway.
Not really, no. 120Hz is so much smoother than 60Hz that when I dip to 60FPS it feels like it's stuttering. 60FPS constant is fine but you get MUCH smoother motion, MUCH less tearing (to the point of being eliminated visually), and MUCH less input lag.
I'm pushing 1440p 120Hz with 2x7970s (@1100MHz now).
It is not always about numbers, but if want to talk number the 7970 crossfired in lebanon cost more than $1400 at 120 Hz which means you would pay like $12 per Hz while a 660Ti for example you are paying about $7 per Hz at 60 Hz. I do not think the trade off is worth the extra cash (not to mention the bigger tower and extra cooling involved).
and I did not say a higher resolution is not better for image quality, I said it is more power hungry than useful. at 1080p you are pushing 2.073 MPix per frame at 1440p you will be pushing 3.686 MPix, that's 77% more than full HD for a better quality that you may not notice on a big screen TV.
If you have the extra cash for premium again it is worth it, but why spend this much on something you may end up not using, knowing that something better would come soon.
I don't know what your points are exactly. Each 7970 cost me around $440 from the USA. Now the 280X costs $300 and arrives to Lebanon for less than $400. I didn't suggest anyone get 7970 CrossFire, it's up to you. But there are capable graphics solutions that can easily push 1080p 120Hz and 1440p 120Hz nowadays, like the Radeon R9-290 and GTX780 (in multi-GPU configs mostly).

What's with the numbers, though? I AM using 1440p 110Hz now. And I can easily tell between 60, 75, 96, and 110Hz. You could do a "blind " test and I'd tell you what refresh rate the monitor is running.

Why are you comparing 1440p vs. 1080p on a big screen TV? No TVs exist at 1440p so it's a moot point to discuss. However, 1440p on a desktop monitor is quite a lot better than 1080p on a smaller desktop monitor. If 1080p PC monitors are being compared to 1080p TVs, then fine. But 27" 1440p > 23-24" 1080p easily, so it's apples to oranges.

The resolution is not 77% more intensive. In my case it's about 50% more intensive. 2x7970's, however, are overkill for 1080p so I didn't even mind the performance drop. And in most cases 1080p 4xMSAA is as intensive as 1440p no AA. And 1440p does not need as much AA as 1080p so I don't see myself having lost performance really.

OP is asking for a $500 TV and I suggested that you could get 1440p 120Hz for that money. If there are extra costs to getting the best out of that monitor, then my point becomes that there are much cheaper PC monitors that might be better.

Anways, I'd like to know what the OP thinks.