Now I am.......really at a cross-roads

51 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

In the right environment and lighting these monitors do look nice.  However one will quickly notice the lackluster contrast ratio and horrible blacks.  A newer 4K TV at the same price level will have a superior image.  

Please point Rick to an independent review that confirms that.

And what are the right lighting and environment conditions?

TVs give people a lot of screen space for the money. Users have to choose wisely because unless they support chroma 4:4:4 the image quality will be compromised.

Monitors have a higher build quality generally. The user needs to weigh up all the pros and cons, do their research and then buy knowing they have made the right decision for them.

14 minutes ago, vc10man said:

Now I am.......really at a cross-roads

https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/samsung/ue590

Having real world experience with this monitor I find this review very accurate.  Trust me u can do better.  If u have the room look at a Samsung 40-43 7100 series 4K TV.

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by mpw8679

6 minutes ago, vc10man said:

Now I am.......really at a cross-roads

Take your time Rick and chew over your options. Of course the Samsung isn’t going to be perfect for £320. It’s half the price of mine for a slightly smaller screen.

TVs are out as the smallest is 40” so if you don’t have the space for a 32” monitor then obviously a 40” TV won’t fit.

Searching for 28” UHD monitors only reveals Samsung so it’s Hobson’s choice really. If you can fit a 32” in you have a far greater choice.

18 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

TVs are out as the smallest is 40” so if you don’t have the space for a 32” monitor then obviously a 40” TV won’t fit.

Precisely the point I was referring to earlier.

19 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

look at a Samsung 40-43 7100 series 4K TV.

Don not have a TV set, never had one since 2004, and moreover, dislike TVs. If I cannot fit a 32" on my work-desk, very much doubt a 32" would even fit. So that dimensions alone precludes it. But thanks for the kind suggestion, nevertheless.

If it's primarily for flight sim's, and you have the space - get a 4K TV.

You'll get more bang for buck on screen real estate, and TV's have far better quality control than monitors these days. Even on high-end monitors you will no doubt be playing the "panel lottery".

For reference, I run an RTX2080 and it powers my 65" Sony XE93 TV beautifully.

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by Gordon Hutchison

Thanks for that input, Gordon. Like the saying goes, 'a lot of gristle to chew over' before the olde wallet comes out🤣

42 minutes ago, Gordon Hutchison said:

If it's primarily for flight sim's, and you have the space - get a 4K TV.

You'll get more bang for buck on screen real estate, and TV's have far better quality control than monitors these days. Even on high-end monitors you will no doubt be playing the "panel lottery".

For reference, I run an RTX2080 and it powers my 65" Sony XE93 TV beautifully.

But he's already said he doesn't have the space for a TV.

Are you serious about TVs having better quality control than monitors? Mine came with a calibration report for colour accuracy that makes it 100% sRGB. Doubt you'll get any TV to that standard unless it's professionally ISF calibrated and is high quality.

If you're referring to dead pixels then I haven't seen any on any monitor I've bought in the last 12 years.

Your 65" is certainly immersive but spreading 3840 horizontal pixels over that size compared to a smaller monitor will mean text is not as sharp. You can have immersion and fine detail but not both with either TVs or monitors. The user chooses.

29 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But he's already said he doesn't have the space for a TV.

Are you serious about TVs having better quality control than monitors? Mine came with a calibration report for colour accuracy that makes it 100% sRGB. Doubt you'll get any TV to that standard unless it's professionally ISF calibrated and is high quality.

If you're referring to dead pixels then I haven't seen any on any monitor I've bought in the last 12 years.

Your 65" is certainly immersive but spreading 3840 horizontal pixels over that size compared to a smaller monitor will mean text is not as sharp. You can have immersion and fine detail but not both with either TVs or monitors. The user chooses.

I’ve purchased 6 monitors in the last 7 years and 2 of them came with dead pixels.  Asus and a Samsung.  And they were both upper end models.  You need to get off this assumption that monitors have superior build quality.  

On 2/3/2019 at 8:25 AM, CaptainXG said:

lot of people recommend the smaller Dell 34" monitors for P3d because of the sharpness ... hm... it is only the resolution which changes or not?

 

Everything has a price, but for the same price as the latest model wide model with all the goodies I saved a little and got the Dell U3417W and two Dell U24s. But I really like this monitor and this is why...

The most valuable thing that this monitor has which I don't know if others do is that it has a flawless built in DP/HDMI switch at the touch of a button. A real DP/HDMI KVM will set you back about $250. I have a two computer with three monitor setup.

Computer A has Monitor 1/2 and Computer B has Monitor 2/3, Monitor 1/3 are U24s/DVD-I and 2 is U34 with DP to CompA an HDMI to CompB

Monitor 1/U24/DVD-I is always showing Computer A on the left, while monitor 3/U24/DVD-I is always showing Computer B on the right, and I switch Monitor 3/U34W17/DP/HDMI in the middle between CompA/B at the push of a button on the bottom of the monitor. When I'm flying I use microsoft's mouse without borders to move between compA/B without switching. Absolutely love this setup.

 

37 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

I’ve purchased 6 monitors in the last 7 years and 2 of them came with dead pixels.  Asus and a Samsung.  And they were both upper end models.  You need to get off this assumption that monitors have superior build quality.  

I don’t need to get off anything. Your Samsung was not an upper end model assuming you’re referring to the one you said had dubious picture quality. What’s with buying six monitors in seven years?

I know MY BenQ - both of them - are excellent monitors. The price reflects that. I also had a Dell 2407 for 11 years and the only problem with it was a fading display. Hardly an issue for something that old.

A quality monitor will last several graphics card updates. Invest in a good one and it will pay dividends. Buy dubious quality ones and you end up buying again.

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by Ray Proudfoot

19 minutes ago, FPStewy said:

Dell U3417W and two Dell U24s

Glad to read that somebody else likes the Dell marque as I have had not a dingle dead pixel or a glitch on the 24-in Dell UltraSharp currently in usage.

21 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

a Dell 2407 for 11 years

That says it all as per my long-running Dell.

37 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I don’t need to get off anything. Your Samsung was not an upper end model assuming you’re referring to the one you said had dubious picture quality. What’s with buying six monitors in seven years?

I know MY BenQ - both of them - are excellent monitors. The price reflects that. I also had a Dell 2407 for 11 years and the only problem with it was a fading display. Hardly an issue for something that old.

A quality monitor will last several graphics card updates. Invest in a good one and it will pay dividends. Buy dubious quality ones and you end up buying again.

The Samsung was a $700 34 inch ultra wide.  The Asus was a $1100 34 inch also.  Hardly low end.  Your Dell lasted 11 years? I have a 10 year old Sony 55 inch that is still going strong.  TV has been used 6-12 hours a day since new.  

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

But he's already said he doesn't have the space for a TV.

Are you serious about TVs having better quality control than monitors? Mine came with a calibration report for colour accuracy that makes it 100% sRGB. Doubt you'll get any TV to that standard unless it's professionally ISF calibrated and is high quality.

If you're referring to dead pixels then I haven't seen any on any monitor I've bought in the last 12 years.

Your 65" is certainly immersive but spreading 3840 horizontal pixels over that size compared to a smaller monitor will mean text is not as sharp. You can have immersion and fine detail but not both with either TVs or monitors. The user chooses.

From my experience; yes I would have to make the statement that TV's seem to be of a more consistent panel quality control than dedicated monitors these days.

Of course price range will play a part - a high end monitor will likely be better than a cheaper, larger TV.

I'm not advocating everyone gets 4K TV's over monitors for desktop use and I don't expect most folks to buy a £2.5K TV like my Sony XE93 just for PC use - its extravagant and I concede that.

However, since getting into flight sim's roughly 6 years ago I've used a 24" 1200p, 32" 1440p, 43" 4K and 34" 1440p Ultrawide - nothing even comes close to the immersive "experience" of the large 65" 4K.

Yes, the pixel density of 2160p over a 65" screen will have an effect on text clarity. However, with windows display scaling its perfectly usable for day-to-day pc usage (I'm sitting typing this on it now) - and it really shines when running a sim.

In a contest between TV's vs monitors at a given price range, my money would always be on the TV's having better quality control and less issues such as dead pixels, backlight bleed, IPS glow etc.

With LG showcasing their new OLED variable refresh rate 120Hz TV's at CES last month, its clear that dedicated "gaming" monitor tech is beginning to transfer over to higher end TV's, these are likely to be epic!

 

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by Gordon Hutchison