32'' LCD TV as a PC monitor, 720p or 1080p?

[konakona]

EDIT: Thanks guys for all your suggestions, I ended up ordering a Panasonic TC-L32S1. I am sure it I will love it when it gets here, much love to anandtech forums

I have spent about a good hour at my local fry's comparing different TVs of varying sizes. A mini conclusion I got out of it was that it is true when people say 37'' is about the biggest you would want on your desk. In fact, 32'' might be just as good, considering I would only sit 3-4feet away from the screen.

Since I think I got the size thing down, now the question of 720p vs 1080p must be answered. Some say for that small of a size (32''), it doesn't make much difference. The thing is, I am hoping to use this as my primary monitor on my entertainment machine.

Typical usage will include video, pc gaming, images and forum reading/posting. I don't plan on using this for anything productivity related, so text readability is something I could definitely compromise on. Video files (anime TV rips) these days mostly come in 720p format, but quite a few are already starting to appear in 1080p;with my somewhat optimistic prediction, more than half would turn into 1080p by next year. The games will have a good mix of FPS, MMORPG and visual novels (games that primarily have static high-rez images with text).

Would videos look noticeably better if the source material is in 1080P? Would poor pixel density hurt in games if I choose to go with 720P? How about static images, would they look better with 1080P? I have close to 0 experience using LCD TVs, please excuse my ignorance.

All this would be moot though only if I could find a quality 1080P for cheap, like one of those LG 32'' that went for $360 a little while ago. My main concern here of course is the relatively cheap price of 720P screens vs the 1080P ones.

Oh, and if you have something to say about 32'' vs 37'' for desktop use, feel free to do so. I am open to ideas

 

[Indus]

Personally biased but I use a Sony 37xbr6 for my bedroom tv and pc monitor. Its 1080p and great quality.

37 should be the upper max though but 32 will be fine. Defenitely go for 1080p. 720p is too small for gaming monitors.

I can't suggest you one but like I said 1080p is worth it.

 

[yacoub]

1080p, no question. It's wonderful. Being so close to it makes the 1080p a noticeable difference, and being used for a PC means you get much more screen real estate, can run games in higher resolution, and can watch 1080p video content at native resolution.
The most important question is -which- 1080p display to get, because you want to find one with low input latency or a gaming mode which provides a lower latency than during regular TV watching use. I put a lot of time into researching what to get and found the 32" XBR9 to be the best option, and it turned out to be just perfect. I use it for gaming, watching movies, etc. But even as good as it is, it's still a secondary display, because TVs no matter how good they are, are not meant for fine text clarity the way a computer LCD monitor is. It's passable as a primary display, but I much prefer it as my secondary for entertainment use.

 

[konakona]

wow, some great replies there, just what I needed to hear

As for anything text related, I am not that critical at all and more than willing to 'downgrade' in that sense. If anything, I sit on a L-shaped desk with a secondary machine right next to my primary.

I am going to have my eyes peeled for a good deal on 32'' 1080P's then. What is it that sets XBR 9 apart from the rest? Being from sony, i would expect it uses S-PVA?

 

[daveybrat]

I have a Vizio 32" 720P that i run for my monitor. The biggest difference between a normal LCD monitor and a LCD tv is that a monitor is 6-Bit color panel and a TV is 8-bit color panel.

My games are very vivid and colorful as opposed to the washed out colors on my 19" Dell LCD.

The text issue really only shows up on HDMI. On the PC input (VGA), my text looks sharp and crisp, but kinda blurry and jagged on HDMI.

 

[Spikesoldier]

i had a 32" 720p olevia tv a long time ago at my old apartment. i sat probably one or two feet away from it as it was mounted at slightly higher than normal viewing height on the wall, pitched down at a 3* angle.

i didnt have a powerhouse computer at the time and games were very fun. i have not tried a 1080p set like this setup, but i liked the larger pixels compared to a 1080p set. i do have a 21.5" 1080p lcd and the pixels are very very small. compared to a 1680x1050 22" lcd i also have, the 22" is much easier to look at. currently using a 24" lg 1080p.

i think if you plan to sit closely like in a desk setup and not be on the couch across the room, i think you can get away with 720p and not have to have such a powerful system to push awesome looking games.

the cherry on top would be to get the 120hz 32" 720p if they do make them. led would be even better and not hog up space on the desk and not have to be mounted on the wall.

 

[yacoub]

Daveybrat - true, I am using a DVI-to-HDMI cable, and the text is pretty clear, but I'd imagine VGA might make it better still. It also depends on how you configure the picture. Certain settings, like Noise Reduction, can tend to remove the sharpness needed for fine text. So you should ideally have a separate picture setting for computer use that's different from what you'd use for movie watching.

Some of the things that set the XBR9 apart for me included the selectable gaming mode which disables the Noise Reduction feature completely (which is what would add noticeable input latency to an otherwise speedy display), the nice amount of configuration options for the picture, the great assortment of connection options, as well as having up to four separate picture modes you can set up and switch between quickly so you aren't stuck changing a bunch of options when you want to switch from gaming to watching a movie. I used a display calibration DVD to set up the picture the way I want it for movies and used a separate picture mode for gaming, so I can switch between them quickly.

I really like the picture quality, which is something I've admired on several of the XBR lines Sony has put out. They've always been a bit expensive, especially the 32" models, which often sold for a price that would get you a 37-40" of a lower quality. But for me size wasn't as important as picture quality, because 32" is a perfect desktop size. It sits around 2.5 feet from me and the 1920x1080 is fantastic. I can't see the individual pixels, which is something that would be noticeable (to me) on an equivalent physical-sized display with a lower native resolution (i.e. 720p) at the same distance, or on a larger display sitting that close.
Also, my primary display is the 1680x1050 2007wfp and from using that I knew I could not settle for a resolution less than 1080 pixels high so I could play 1080p content at native res.

There was a big sale on Amazon back when I bought it, that my local Best Buy was willing to price match. I think nowadays it's around that same price without a sale, if it's still available. (I always try to buy a display at a local store so I can return it easily if there's anything wrong. The only exception being Dell when they have a big sale on a good display because the bang-for-the-buck can be tough to beat.)

I think the other thing to consider is how long you plan to keep the TV. If you're looking at a 1-2 year replacement cycle, you can get away with 720p and not feel like you're missing too much. But as 1080p grows in popularity, you're going to want that the ability to display it properly. I buy to keep for fairly long cycles, so I spend a little more but get what I want and intend it to last several years.

 

[daveybrat]

Daveybrat - true, I am using a DVI-to-HDMI cable, and the text is pretty clear, but I'd imagine VGA might make it better still. It also depends on how you configure the picture. Certain settings, like Noise Reduction, can tend to remove the sharpness needed for fine text. So you should ideally have a separate picture setting for computer use that's different from what you'd use for movie watching.

Some of the things that set the XBR9 apart for me included the selectable gaming mode which disables the Noise Reduction feature completely (which is what would add noticeable input latency to an otherwise speedy display), the nice amount of configuration options for the picture, the great assortment of connection options, as well as having up to four separate picture modes you can set up and switch between quickly so you aren't stuck changing a bunch of options when you want to switch from gaming to watching a movie. I used a display calibration DVD to set up the picture the way I want it for movies and used a separate picture mode for gaming, so I can switch between them quickly.

I really like the picture quality, which is something I've admired on several of the XBR lines Sony has put out. They've always been a bit expensive, especially the 32" models, which often sold for a price that would get you a 37-40" of a lower quality. But for me size wasn't as important as picture quality, because 32" is a perfect desktop size. It sits around 2.5 feet from me and the 1920x1080 is fantastic. I can't see the individual pixels, which is something that would be noticeable (to me) on an equivalent physical-sized display with a lower native resolution (i.e. 720p) at the same distance, or on a larger display sitting that close.
Also, my primary display is the 1680x1050 2007wfp and from using that I knew I could not settle for a resolution less than 1080 pixels high so I could play 1080p content at native res.

There was a big sale on Amazon back when I bought it, that my local Best Buy was willing to price match. I think nowadays it's around that same price without a sale, if it's still available. (I always try to buy a display at a local store so I can return it easily if there's anything wrong. The only exception being Dell when they have a big sale on a good display because the bang-for-the-buck can be tough to beat.)

I think the other thing to consider is how long you plan to keep the TV. If you're looking at a 1-2 year replacement cycle, you can get away with 720p and not feel like you're missing too much. But as 1080p grows in popularity, you're going to want that the ability to display it properly. I buy to keep for fairly long cycles, so I spend a little more but get what I want and intend it to last several years.

I also tried HDMI as my HD 4670 has native HDMI out on it, it looked great for movies, but the text was just not right. I switched to a VGA cable and it looked much better, very clear and crisp text. I would highly recommend VGA for text and fonts.

 

[boran]

Commenting on the two posts above.

That's rather weird. VGA is analog and DVI is digital, you would expect the opposite behavior.
But I cant argue with your experiences do what looks best.

 

[Indus]

I forgot to mention 1 thing earlier, even if you playback dvd's or use other sources of video files, use VLC to play them. Its the best upscaler I've ever seen and I mean it will take 480i material and make it look high def quality.

I've been looking for better software but nothing comes close.

 

[Denithor]

Are there any settings for VLC to upscale or does it just happen automatically?

Thankies...

 

[konakona]

I forgot to mention 1 thing earlier, even if you playback dvd's or use other sources of video files, use VLC to play them. Its the best upscaler I've ever seen and I mean it will take 480i material and make it look high def quality.

I've been looking for better software but nothing comes close.

I loathe it's interface, subtitles look ugly, taking screencaps (I do this VERY often) isn't convenient, etc, etc. In fact I wish kmplayer guys make a non-directshow version so I could ditch VLC on ubuntu; to me kmplayer is a much better player overall. Even if they were equal, I am more used to the latter's interface and shortcuts.

That's rather weird. VGA is analog and DVI is digital, you would expect the opposite behavior.
But I cant argue with your experiences do what looks best.

I am just guessing that since HMDI forces you to use whatever rez (1080p?) outside of the monitors native rez, and thus a scaled version of the image/text. PC input at native rez probably looks better if so.

 

[konakona]

Some conflicting views on 720p vs 1080p there. Like I wrote earlier, I am expecting to use it for mostly 1080p contents by next year. In one of the other threads here I have read not all LED TVs are created equal; without a LED grid for local dimming, it sounds more like a marketing gimmick at this size and price bracket. Oh yeah, that and the 120hz. Does it really make a noticeable difference?

That ability to quickly cycle through different settings sounds pretty neat, but I didn't really need any more input than one that delivers best picture for the PC. Are there any comparable units in terms of colors, responsiveness and image quality in general (for less perhaps?)

It definitely makes more sense to buy from a B&M retail for replacement/warranty purposes, except I will be moving out of the country for good sometime next year. Difference in price more than justifies going without warranty IMO, plus I would get to use it for the time being starting NOW

 

[xdantespardax]

Some conflicting views on 720p vs 1080p there. Like I wrote earlier, I am expecting to use it for mostly 1080p contents by next year. In one of the other threads here I have read not all LED TVs are created equal; without a LED grid for local dimming, it sounds more like a marketing gimmick at this size and price bracket. Oh yeah, that and the 120hz. Does it really make a noticeable difference?

That ability to quickly cycle through different settings sounds pretty neat, but I didn't really need any more input than one that delivers best picture for the PC. Are there any comparable units in terms of colors, responsiveness and image quality in general (for less perhaps?)

It definitely makes more sense to buy from a B&M retail for replacement/warranty purposes, except I will be moving out of the country for good sometime next year. Difference in price more than justifies going without warranty IMO, plus I would get to use it for the time being starting NOW

The only thing with a 1080p monitor is that if you were going to play games wouldn't that resolution be the optimum res? So if your pc can't handle that res which is very high, it would have to use a lower res. Would that look blocky/pixellated, well I suppose you would have to try it at different resolutions to see. I am wondering whether to upgrade to a 1080p monitor myself.

 

[konakona]

Actually, I am not sure what native rez on most 1080p panels is. But I think 1080p is not a terribly high rez by today's GPU's standards. You could easily pick up a relatively cheap 4890 and play everything that is not named crysis, for the moment anyway. Easier for me, since my 4830 died a while ago and I am just waiting for the right moment while holding out with my IGP. It does everything except demanding FPS which I could live without for a while

 

[exar333]

i had a 32" 720p olevia tv a long time ago at my old apartment. i sat probably one or two feet away from it as it was mounted at slightly higher than normal viewing height on the wall, pitched down at a 3* angle.

i didnt have a powerhouse computer at the time and games were very fun. i have not tried a 1080p set like this setup, but i liked the larger pixels compared to a 1080p set. i do have a 21.5" 1080p lcd and the pixels are very very small. compared to a 1680x1050 22" lcd i also have, the 22" is much easier to look at. currently using a 24" lg 1080p.

i think if you plan to sit closely like in a desk setup and not be on the couch across the room, i think you can get away with 720p and not have to have such a powerful system to push awesome looking games.

the cherry on top would be to get the 120hz 32" 720p if they do make them. led would be even better and not hog up space on the desk and not have to be mounted on the wall.

The only 120hz LCD TVs available use interpolation to "do 120hz", they are not really 120hz. There are DLP TVs that really do 120hz, but they wouldn't easily fit on the wall.

I am amazed how often people think these TVs are really 120hz. The marketing is strong with this feature...

 

[HopJokey]

Actually, I am not sure what native rez on most 1080p panels is. But I think 1080p is not a terribly high rez by today's GPU's standards. You could easily pick up a relatively cheap 4890 and play everything that is not named crysis, for the moment anyway. Easier for me, since my 4830 died a while ago and I am just waiting for the right moment while holding out with my IGP. It does everything except demanding FPS which I could live without for a while

1080p TVs are 1920x1080, pretty high for gaming. Essentially 1920x1200, which you find on most GPU reviews.

 

[exar333]

1080p TVs are 1920x1080, pretty high for gaming. Essentially 1920x1200, which you find on most GPU reviews.

Agreed.

1080p and 1920x1200 are pretty standard for the forum users here, but a majority of people still use lower resolutions than this for gaming on 20-22" LCDs.

 

[konakona]

Agreed.

1080p and 1920x1200 are pretty standard for the forum users here, but a majority of people still use lower resolutions than this for gaming on 20-22" LCDs.

true, but I am an AT denizen after all. my idea of "high rez" was something that can't be handled well by a single GPU (e.g. 2560x1600). correct me if I am wrong, even the now extremely affordable 4890s can handle 1920x1200 with ease when overclocked. Sounds like we are just disagreeing on semantics of it, my point is that a 1080p TV is still easier on GPUs than monitors of comparable size (and higher rez, of course) and considered doable with a higher tier GPUs. I do have plans for a GPU upgrade in the near future (that is, if higher rez is noticeably better for video/gaming for a 32'' sitting on a desk - the gist of my question)

 

[exar333]

true, but I am an AT denizen after all. my idea of "high rez" was something that can't be handled well by a single GPU (e.g. 2560x1600). correct me if I am wrong, even the now extremely affordable 4890s can handle 1920x1200 with ease when overclocked. Sounds like we are just disagreeing on semantics of it, my point is that a 1080p TV is still easier on GPUs than monitors of comparable size (and higher rez, of course) and considered doable with a higher tier GPUs. I do have plans for a GPU upgrade in the near future (that is, if higher rez is noticeably better for video/gaming for a 32'' sitting on a desk - the gist of my question)

I agree 100%. That's actually why I purchased a 24" over a 32" LCD monitor 18 months ago. Although I love to game, I just don't game enough to justify (to me) the extra $$$ for a 32" LCD plus a top-tier GPU (or SLI/CF at that time).

A 1080P 32" LCD TV is a great compromise because it allows you to use a GTX 260/4870+ and pretty much run anything at great detail. If your computer usage is mostly gaming, it's the way to go.

 

[Indus]

true, but I am an AT denizen after all. my idea of "high rez" was something that can't be handled well by a single GPU (e.g. 2560x1600). correct me if I am wrong, even the now extremely affordable 4890s can handle 1920x1200 with ease when overclocked. Sounds like we are just disagreeing on semantics of it, my point is that a 1080p TV is still easier on GPUs than monitors of comparable size (and higher rez, of course) and considered doable with a higher tier GPUs. I do have plans for a GPU upgrade in the near future (that is, if higher rez is noticeably better for video/gaming for a 32'' sitting on a desk - the gist of my question)

Even a GTX 260 core 216 can handle 1080p just fine. I am not guessing.. I have that setup.

But the trick to get more out of any video card is to turn shadows off the best you can. That alone murders rendering and your framerate improves drastically.

 

[reallyscrued]

Commenting on the two posts above.

That's rather weird. VGA is analog and DVI is digital, you would expect the opposite behavior.
But I cant argue with your experiences do what looks best.

You know, I thought the exact same thing when I bought an HDMI cable. I couldn't wait to get it home. My current 40 inch Samsung LCD looks sick with a VGA cable, HDMI should only make it better right?

Wrong. My Samsung scales HDMI no matter what. Text is jagged and blocky and uncomfortable. VGA? Everything's back to normal, looks like a regular monitor. Everything's crisp and natural.

It's really too bad. Black levels and colors are so much better with HDMI but I can't take the damn scaling. Some Samsungs have something the menu called "just-scan" which is a 1:1 pixel representation of the signal they receive with HDMI/DVI but my TV doesn't have it.

It's VGA forever for me.

 

[reallyscrued]

You know, I thought the exact same thing when I bought an HDMI cable. I couldn't wait to get it home. My current 40 inch Samsung LCD looks sick with a VGA cable, HDMI should only make it better right?

Wrong. My Samsung scales HDMI no matter what. Text is jagged and blocky and uncomfortable. VGA? Everything's back to normal, looks like a regular monitor. Everything's crisp and natural.

It's really too bad. Black levels and colors are so much better with HDMI but I can't take the damn scaling. Some Samsungs have something the menu called "just-scan" which is a 1:1 pixel representation of the signal they receive with HDMI/DVI but my TV doesn't have it.

It's VGA forever for me.

Oh btw, the original topic: If you are using this as a monitor, if you plan on reading ANY text on it at any point in time (minus DVD/BluRay menus) then get 1080p. To be honest, when you get to sizes like 32 inches and above, 1920x1080 seems still too small of a resolution as a monitor.

But, if you're only watching movies, 720p at 32 inches is fine.

 

[konakona]

Even a GTX 260 core 216 can handle 1080p just fine. I am not guessing.. I have that setup.

But the trick to get more out of any video card is to turn shadows off the best you can. That alone murders rendering and your framerate improves drastically.

you know what, I've been doing that without knowing as long as I could remember, simply because it is one of the last things I care about. If I had a sufficiently powerful GPU, then I could have had it all, but otherwise...

If you are using this as a monitor, if you plan on reading ANY text on it at any point in time (minus DVD/BluRay menus) then get 1080p.

I will be playing bunch of games with lots and lots of text, probably on the order of DVD menus in font size if not a tad smaller. That pretty much seals the deal, 1080p for me then. Thanks!

Now I will have to decide on which 1080p. I have followed the PC monitor scene enough to know strengths and weaknesses of each panel topology. IIRC, for LCD TVs people tend to prefer S-PVA over IPS (probably for better black levels and color saturation?) unlike for LCD monitors. Is that due to the difference in intended use (no photo editing, etc)? Or are those not the same S-PVA panels we see for monitors?

 

[boran]

You know, I thought the exact same thing when I bought an HDMI cable. I couldn't wait to get it home. My current 40 inch Samsung LCD looks sick with a VGA cable, HDMI should only make it better right?

Wrong. My Samsung scales HDMI no matter what. Text is jagged and blocky and uncomfortable. VGA? Everything's back to normal, looks like a regular monitor. Everything's crisp and natural.

It's really too bad. Black levels and colors are so much better with HDMI but I can't take the damn scaling. Some Samsungs have something the menu called "just-scan" which is a 1:1 pixel representation of the signal they receive with HDMI/DVI but my TV doesn't have it.

It's VGA forever for me.

If the signal is not in the native resolution of the monitor I understand that a signal which is at native resolution definetly looks better.

I do not understand however that you apparently cannot chose a resolution for you HDMI cable. I run my monitors on DVI connectors (no HDTV's but plain dells) and I can select a resolution.
Is this something that cannot be done for HDMI ?