TV vs PC monitors: what is the best gaming screen to play on Xbox?

Celine2020

Member
What is the best gaming screen for Xbox? We often talk about TV, because it is the peripheral which accompanies for the majority of the players. Nevertheless, with each article where we praise the advantages of new standards supported by the last generations of televisions, numerous are those to question the use of a TV to play the console, or even play at all.

Not reactive enough, too expensive, too big ... there are also main reasons given for choosing a PC monitor rather than a TV. In this article we will try to disentangle the true from the false, try to establish together the advantages and disadvantages that there are between the two supports and give you all the keys to make the right choice during your next purchase. We will therefore talk about comfort, price and of course performance, trying to keep in mind that in any case, there is no miracle solution to all our constraints and that vary from person to person.

TV vs PC monitors: what is the best gaming screen to play on Xbox?

Performance on Xbox: TV vs PC monitors

If there is one subject that makes crowds react when we talk about playing on a television, it is performance. TV brands used (and still use) different treatments to improve the image, but these had the undesirable effect of significantly increasing the input lag. The time lag between when you press a key and when the action appears on the screen.

The instructor: promise of unrivaled performance

In response to this problem, many xbox players have turned to a PC monitor. Indeed, the latter is the promise of the rawest image possible, without image processing and therefore increased responsiveness.

When we talk about reactivity, this implies the response time as well as the input lag. Many xbox players often confused, these two measures are very different. The response time represents the time that a pixel takes to change state when the input lag, meanwhile, designates the time elapsed between the moment when a key is pressed and when the action takes place at the screen.

Where the monitor stands out above all from the TV is in its connections. If they are equipped with HDMI ports, the DisplayPort often remains the preferred solution for connecting its screen to the PC. Allowing transit of up to 32.4 Gbps of information when the HDMI 2.0 is limited to 18 Gbps, it allows increased compatibilities through different resolutions and refresh rates.

It is thus possible to use the 1440p at 144Hz with a VRR solution, HDR ... The only real limit being especially on the side of your machine. Unfortunately, our good old consoles are not equipped with DisplayPort, and we have to be content with the limits of HDMI 2.0 anyway.

HDMI 2.1: the TV has improved

Manhandled for years by monitors, the television has, in recent times, recovered from the hair of the beast with regard to performance. In fact, televisions have greatly improved in terms of response time and input lag.

Today, the lowest response time is found on OLED panels. No monitor, whether equipped with a VA, TN or IPS panel, can match the reactivity of small organic diodes. Coupled with the new HDMI 2.1 standard and its 48 Gbps ports, the 2019 OLED range from LG currently offers an unrivaled gaming experience. Like most televisions in this price range, it has the added bonus of a native 120 Hz panel, making the compatibilities diverse and varied. We can for example play in 4K at 120 Hz with HDR, VRR, and other joys of the genre. The only real limit is now on the source side.

On the input lag side, there too things have changed. Thanks to the democratization of video games, the TV sector has taken on the problem of the input lag head-on in order to considerably reduce the undesirable effects of image processing for gamers.

But what is response time actually?

Often, we speak of response time to designate the time it takes for a pixel to go through all its states before returning to its original state. This time is counted in milliseconds and varies from one screen technology to another. Indeed, TN, VA, IPS, Plasma or OLED panels represent technologies where the response time varies a lot. OLED is the technology whose response time is the lowest, even almost immediate, we are talking here about 0.05 ms offset depending on the calculation method. On LCD televisions equipped with VA type panels, the response time is generally around 5 ms to 8 ms when the best monitors equipped with TN panels generally display 1 ms to 3 ms at the expense of image quality.
 

Celine2020

Member
Technologies evolve quickly and we are talking here anyway of figures which are only of the order of a few milliseconds, but marketing is often very well honed in an attempt to justify prices based on values of which only brands know the methods Calculation.

Here is a small animation illustrating the effects of the pixel response time. First of all with an immediate response time: the ball is perfectly clear on each image, the pixels being able to go out instantly when the next image is displayed, as on an OLED screen.

best gaming screen to play on Xbox?

Now see what pixels with an overly pronounced response time give to the screen: afterglow, ghosting (or ghosting) of the ball inducing motion blur, particularly detrimental to the scale of a game with movements fast camera shots like FPS. This is due to the fact that the pixels take some time to completely extinguish, in this case more than 2x the time imposed by the framerate.

best gaming screen to play on Xbox?

As the criterion is not standardized, manufacturers usually display the lowest measured values. The argument of response time is therefore often put forward by brands of PC monitors known as "Gaming" by announcing figures like 1 ms, 2 ms or 5 ms, when the televisions indicate them more generally their values, naturally higher, of input lag. But do not be mistaken there, the PC monitors also have input lag , only you have to look a little further to find the numbers.

Note: the response time of an OLED panel is so low that displaying a video at 24 frames per second is complicated. Indeed, it will often appear as jerky because no motion blur generally created by a higher response time comes here to give the feeling of fluidity.

Comfort
The relation to comfort is very different from one person to another. When some find it more comfortable to play on a large diagonal screen sprawled on a sofa, others systematically think of the ultra optimized office setup, in its bubble, a dynamic position without any element being able to disrupt their sessions.

There is no miracle answer to the question “which device offers the best gaming comfort”. Everyone will see advantages and disadvantages but nothing which, on one side as on the other, hinders performance.

Yes but the TV is “too big for our eyes”

Among the arguments in favor of the monitor, we regularly hear that a TV is too big to play and that it is better to prefer a monitor with a limited size to facilitate the “eye path” on the screen. In addition to thinking this idea completely eccentric, we will answer simply that the necessary different distance between the two peripherals makes that the eyes travel absolutely the same “distance” at 2m from a 55 ”TV as at 50 cm from a screen 24 ”.

Once again, it is only a matter of preference and there is nothing objectively preventing one from playing on the other.

Price

For some it is the number one criterion when it is necessary to change equipment. The price is indeed an important element that comes to curb our dreams of state-of-the-art screens when going to checkout. Unfortunately, to take advantage of the latest technologies and take full eyes, it is often necessary to align a few tickets and in this little game, the monitor has serious arguments to make.

The monitor: high performance at a low cost

Indeed, the monitor is often synonymous with high performance at a lower cost. Smaller than televisions, monitors are an alternative of choice for those who want to have quality equipment by sacrificing large sizes that are incompatible with an office installation.

Although there are more and more monitors with more exotic sizes and ratios, on this generation, it is indeed possible to have a screen fully compatible with current consoles for a quarter of the price of an equivalent television set.


And to take full advantage of the Xbox Series X and PS5?

To take full advantage of the next-gen consoles that are the PS5 and Xbox Series X, it will be necessary to turn to a product equipped with HDMI 2.1 ports. Indeed, the consoles do not have DisplayPort, which means that the majority of PC monitors are automatically excluded from the selection. It's a safe bet that you have to wait for the graphics cards to offer HDMI 2.1 to see this connection land among screen specialists. However, Eve Spectrum recently presented a 27 ”4K monitor compatible with HDMI 2.1 with a bright peak of 750 nits for $ 649; is currently an excellent performance / price / size ratio.

On the television side, more and more brands are following in the footsteps of HDMI 2.1. LG was the first to offer 4 HDMI 2.1 ports in 2019 on these televisions. We had already been able to test the LG Oled E9 last September and it had amazed us with its versatility and its “next-gen” ready aspect. Recently , Samsung has announced that its QLED 2020 products will also support the HDMI 2.1 standard. It's a safe bet that Sony will follow suit to offer players an ecosystem 100% compatible with the new features of its next home console, the PlayStation 5.

The LG C9 OLED: a TV that we have tested and that we widely recommend, 100% Xbox Series X compatible.


The offer fully compatible with new generation consoles is stronger on the TV side than monitors, but we should soon see new products land on the market to balance. Apart from the question of the price which is to the advantage of monitors with performances more or less equal to the detrimant of a screen size intended for a different use; the rest is completely subjective. Today there is an absolutely colossal offer of products capable of meeting your needs.
 

Amnesia

Member
I was very interested in the C9 but the risks of Burn In are too great on Oled TVs For my use, the risks are too great.
So I hesitate between these 2 models: Sony KD-55XG9505 and Samsung 55Q95T
 

Nike Kidman

Member
I was very interested in the C9 but the risks of Burn In are too great on Oled TVs For my use, the risks are too great.
So I hesitate between these 2 models: Sony KD-55XG9505 and Samsung 55Q95T
to have the C9, you don't need to worry too much about the Burn in effect. Each time you turn off the TV, it uses cleaning software to avoid burning. Even if it is not recommended, I sometimes leave the TV on while I am cooking etc, it is enough to program a standby after 30 min of non-use and no more risk;)
 

Amnesia

Member
to have the C9, you don't need to worry too much about the Burn in effect. Each time you turn off the TV, it uses cleaning software to avoid burning. Even if it is not recommended, I sometimes leave the TV on while I am cooking etc, it is enough to program a standby after 30 min of non-use and no more risk;)

It's just that I have a fairly intensive use of my TV! I manage to play games more than 5 hours sometimes, that's why I freak out a lot for the purchase of an Oled ...
But the LG C9 really catches my eye! Mash, it's so hard to choose ... Thank you for your reply anyway!
 

reality

Member
nobody talks about their video projectors??
They have really changed in the right direction. They are now 4k hdr compatible with a really low imput lag or 1080p 120z compatible with an imput lag of 8ms. I just ordered one and I look forward to receiving it so that I can make a screen of 150 inches-

 
Top