LCD or Plasma TV for PC Gaming...

[Patrick Wolf]

Well I got it to work, the desktop fit the screen correctly but...

1. Web browsing is NOT good, the font is weak...
2. For the $800 plus I spent, I can probably buy a TRUE, larger PC MONITOR and not a television...

I suppose it was worth the effort though...

1. What do you mean "weak"? Not all TV's are good at displaying PC input, plus it usually takes some tweaking of the TV settings to look right. What plasma was it?
2. Sure can, go nuts. http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCateg...ay&Order=PRICE

 

[Darkrage]

Bah plasma sucks, get yourself a Samsung LED if you want a TV as a PC monitor.

 

[Obsoleet]

Plasma sucks because you overpaid for a LCD... er I mean a "LED TV"? Plasma tends to be cheaper, does have *far* deeper blacks which adds a big dimension to immersion, has better colors all around (I feel plasma looks almost 3D compared to LCD due to more realistic skintones and such). The response rate is much better than LCD.. there never was a ghosting plasma. So all the 240hz crap and motion compensation is on the LCDs because they still need it in 2010 (as they will in 2011). 600hz is a marketing term that plasmas use because they don't have or need a number to demonstrate a problem was solved on this years models of TVs. LCD is always trying to fix itself.

Trying to fix problems, that are already solved with plasma tech. Head on over to the AVS forums if you think LCD > Plasma and get your learn on.

 

[RussianSensation]

I am also wondering about their relative response times.

Don't you mean Plasma TV's have a faster response time? Which isn't true.

Ya I meant "response time" not "refresh rate." Oops. Thanks for correcting me.

Check out my post #20 on Plasma vs. LCD response time.

A Plasma panel display has near instantaneous response times on the order of 2 milliseconds. The sub pixels of a plasma TV stay alight only for around 2ms when excited. Thus, for example, a 60Hz plasma panel can have 10 pulses per frame, to display the image. Effectively, the screen is being refreshed 60Hz times 10 pulses/frame which gives us a value of 600Hz of some modern plasmas. Now when the displayed frame has to be changed to the next frame, the ultra-fast response times of the Plasma TV sub pixels enables an almost instantaneous transition to the next frame.
Source.

This is why you won't have ghosting on a Plasma.

The only screen I would buy now is an LED backlit LCD. Plasma is an outdated tech that doesn't last as long, uses more power, and prone to burn in from static images (ie computer)

LED backlit is still an LCD, which means it still has all the limitations of LCDs such as inferior viewing angles, inferior black levels, inferior response times.

Proof that Plasmas don't last long? Most plasmas have a 100,000 hour lifespan. This means a life expectancy of 45 years at 6 hours per day. This is far more than anyone would need; and more than LCDs.

As an "overall" PC monitor (i.e., text), Plasma is not the best solution. However, for entertainment purposes (i.e., movies, games), plasma is far superior to LCD in almost every respect besides contrast ratio and power consumption. But even if you start comparing power consumption, you'll come out to about $20 per year for an LCD vs. $60 for a Plasma - hardly a material cost when comparing $1000-2000 TVs. BTW, a 50 inch plasma consumes about 275W at full-wattage, which is less than a GTX480. :biggrin:

The 5 best 2010 HDTVs for picture quality? Plasmas. That's 0/5 for LCDs.

Plasma has been at the top of image quality for as long as I can remember. While Plasma may not be the best option for PC office work, this "old tech" provides the very best overall picture quality. Modern plasmas have protection against burn-in (and white wash filter option). Even my 2006 Panasonic plasma has no burn-in after all these years of use. Usually people who have never used a Plasma discuss burn-in issues.

 

[Anomaly1964]

1. What do you mean "weak"? Not all TV's are good at displaying PC input, plus it usually takes some tweaking of the TV settings to look right. What plasma was it?
2. Sure can, go nuts. http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCateg...ay&Order=PRICE

The font didnt look crisp and clear like it does on an actual PC monitor...

It seems you cannot get both good web browsing and gaming from even the plasma screen. GREAT for gaming, not so great for web browsing, working photoshop, etc...

I'm not a techie but there must be a reason why a 30inch true PC monitor cost A LOT more than a 30 inch television. On the PC monitor you have the best of everything...right?

 

[Vdubchaos]

The font didnt look crisp and clear like it does on an actual PC monitor...

It seems you cannot get both good web browsing and gaming from even the plasma screen. GREAT for gaming, not so great for web browsing, working photoshop, etc...

I'm not a techie but there must be a reason why a 30inch true PC monitor cost A LOT more than a 30 inch television. On the PC monitor you have the best of everything...right?

There is few things you need to make sure are set right

1. Scaling in your Graphics control panel.
2. Make sure your Source input on HDMI is set to PC. My Samsung would not display actual 1080p until I set that. difference was NIGHT AND DAY. Went from unreadable to perfectly crisp!

 

[Anomaly1964]

There is few things you need to make sure are set right

1. Scaling in your Graphics control panel.
2. Make sure your Source input on HDMI is set to PC. My Samsung would not display actual 1080p until I set that. difference was NIGHT AND DAY. Went from unreadable to perfectly crisp!

Yeah, I chose COMPUTER on the Panasonic HDMI Label...

I scaled the font larger and smaller sizes, didn't seem to affect anything...

I've done this with 3 TVs now, think I will, stay with my 24" Gateway, or buy a 27-30" PC Monitor...

 

[taltamir]

just an FYI for the curious who say plasma is outdated...
plasma is a direct improvement of CRT, A CRT uses a cathode ray tube with magnets diverting the electron stream across phosphor. Plasma has millions of cells (3 per pixel, with different kinds/color of phosphor each), each cell with its own "pit" that generates free electrons (plasma is when something gets hot enough so that the electrons separate from the nuclei of the atoms).

So, anyways, CRT is completely outdated, but plasma isn't; it is just different to LCD. There is actually a descendant of plasma being developed right now which is supposedly much better, thinner, and lighter, less power consuming... Whether it will ever see use depends on if it becomes commercial before OLED comes out (or if OLED ends up having currently unkown flaws)

 

[Obsoleet]

RussianSensation knows the score. Usually people wait and say "wait for OLED, that's when things are going to be set right.".. but the thing is, screens with little to no compromise are already here.. people just need to open their minds (and wallets) to plasma.

I was one of the anti-plasma guys, based on pure ignorance, before I bought mine. I did research at AVS forum, and then my buddy bought the Samung PN50B650 (the 2010 model would be PN50C650), and I saw the image quality which blew me away. I'm very methodical in everything I purchase, but I pretty much pulled the trigger the next day and ordered one.
Simply amazing, better than any LCD I'd ever seen.. the stores don't do any of those tvs justice.

One thing that hasn't been noted that is probably my favorite part of my plasma.. other than the viewing angle (seems to be 100&#37, black levels and color and response time. The standard definition SCALING.. it makes standard def content look better than a CRT. At least Samsung's plasmas with their scaling chips do.

I'll take my Samsung plasma over my Sony WEGA 32" that I had prior for standard def content anyday. I'm not an expert, but I don't think plasmas have a "native pixel res" like LCDs do.. where anything out of their maximum resolution scales like crap.

I'm diehard plasma, and the only thing I'd consider otherwise would be a projector. Though too much work for me, you can't beat a gaming session with a 20foot screen.

Most of us who use plasma, aren't sitting around hoping and wishing for OLED or anything else.. we have the good stuff today. Plasma also tends to be cheaper than LCDs. I think I paid $1300 for my TV new, and a LCD with all the bells n whistles that attempted to catch up to plasmas were over $2000.. some people paying $3500 for top end LCDs which is so insane. I'll put my "cheap" plasma up against any LCD that's $3500 or $4000.
Heck, the old Pioneer Kuro plasmas are still widely sought after by HT guys.

 

[Throckmorton]

Interesting, it sounds like plasma is a lot better than it used to be!

 

[taltamir]

RussianSensation knows the score. Usually people wait and say "wait for OLED, that's when things are going to be set right.".. but the thing is, screens with little to no compromise are already here.. people just need to open their minds (and wallets) to plasma.

1. Who here said to wait for oled? oled is many years away and we need to use something until then.
2. Not everyone has big huge massive wallets to open up at whim.
3. Plasma isn't perfect, like all other display technologies, it has its pluses and minuses... (but I am not saying that all are "equal but different"... sometimes the pluses outweigh the minuses)

 

[Anomaly1964]

Ok...MY take on this,

If I wanna watch TV, movies, sports, NOTHING has as good a picture as PLASMA...NOTHING!

For PC work and gaming, after this EXPERIMENT, I would advise sticking with a monitor...

So far, the I-INC is kicking ASS, good colors, great blacks, no dead pixels!

 

[djnsmith7]

I play BF2 on my 58" plasma @ 1920x1080 all the time & have been for 3 years & have no problems with lag or anything else, for that matter & it's as smooth as butter. I know LCD is a different breed for gaming, so your results will vary from one LCD to the next (60 hz vs 120 hz vs 240 hz), but most of the plasma displays (2007+) should be very close to one another in performance (response times).

 

[djnsmith7]

Ya I meant "response time" not "refresh rate." Oops. Thanks for correcting me.

Check out my post #20 on Plasma vs. LCD response time.

A Plasma panel display has near instantaneous response times on the order of 2 milliseconds. The sub pixels of a plasma TV stay alight only for around 2ms when excited. Thus, for example, a 60Hz plasma panel can have 10 pulses per frame, to display the image. Effectively, the screen is being refreshed 60Hz times 10 pulses/frame which gives us a value of 600Hz of some modern plasmas. Now when the displayed frame has to be changed to the next frame, the ultra-fast response times of the Plasma TV sub pixels enables an almost instantaneous transition to the next frame.
Source.

This is why you won't have ghosting on a Plasma.



LED backlit is still an LCD, which means it still has all the limitations of LCDs such as inferior viewing angles, inferior black levels, inferior response times.

Proof that Plasmas don't last long? Most plasmas have a 100,000 hour lifespan. This means a life expectancy of 45 years at 6 hours per day. This is far more than anyone would need; and more than LCDs.

As an "overall" PC monitor (i.e., text), Plasma is not the best solution. However, for entertainment purposes (i.e., movies, games), plasma is far superior to LCD in almost every respect besides contrast ratio and power consumption. But even if you start comparing power consumption, you'll come out to about $20 per year for an LCD vs. $60 for a Plasma - hardly a material cost when comparing $1000-2000 TVs. BTW, a 50 inch plasma consumes about 275W at full-wattage, which is less than a GTX480. :biggrin:

The 5 best 2010 HDTVs for picture quality? Plasmas. That's 0/5 for LCDs.

Plasma has been at the top of image quality for as long as I can remember. While Plasma may not be the best option for PC office work, this "old tech" provides the very best overall picture quality. Modern plasmas have protection against burn-in (and white wash filter option). Even my 2006 Panasonic plasma has no burn-in after all these years of use. Usually people who have never used a Plasma discuss burn-in issues.

Russian, great post & pretty much spot on with my opinions & experiences with this technology.

 

[jacktesterson]

Bah plasma sucks, get yourself a Samsung LED if you want a TV as a PC monitor.

You know nothing about TV's!

Plasma is STILL the best picture you can get.

 

[Throckmorton]

These are very convincing arguments for plasma, but I can't help but think back to when plasma TVs were 1024x768 rectangular pixels completely incapable of 1:1 pixel mapping, when plasma fanboys said they were the best solely because of black levels.

 

[Dark Shroud]

These are very convincing arguments for plasma, but I can't help but think back to when plasma TVs were 1024x768 rectangular pixels completely incapable of 1:1 pixel mapping, when plasma fanboys said they were the best solely because of black levels.

Well it's time to also think of the fact that technology marches on. I can't remember if I've seen Plasmas with 1:1 pixel mapping. But the 600hz models are pretty damn nice.

My only questino is what level of hertz input they are able to take if I plug my PC into one.

 

[RussianSensation]

These are very convincing arguments for plasma, but I can't help but think back to when plasma TVs were 1024x768 rectangular pixels completely incapable of 1:1 pixel mapping, when plasma fanboys said they were the best solely because of black levels.

I am not sure if they recommended it solely on black levels. Even when I bought my 2006 Panasonic Plasma 42inch 1366x768, there was not a single LCD I found that had fast enough response times for sports and as good of a picture quality overall.

Black levels are still very important because you get full preservation of shadow and highlight detail.

Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQdBpZnwfg

 

[taltamir]

These are very convincing arguments for plasma, but I can't help but think back to when plasma TVs were 1024x768 rectangular pixels completely incapable of 1:1 pixel mapping, when plasma fanboys said they were the best solely because of black levels.

back in the day LCD were also very bad.
You should always investigate the quality of an individual model rather then choose based on a technology type.

 

[BladeVenom]

These are very convincing arguments for plasma, but I can't help but think back to when plasma TVs were 1024x768 rectangular pixels completely incapable of 1:1 pixel mapping, when plasma fanboys said they were the best solely because of black levels.

Don't forget burn in, weight, leaks, flicker, fading, RFI, and they are less energy efficient. LCDs don't haves those problems.

Besides it's a almost a moot point, Plasma is heading towards obsolescence and fewer companies even make them anymore. LCDs have won the format war.

 

[BladeVenom]

Black levels are still very important because you get full preservation of shadow and highlight detail.

Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQdBpZnwfg

Looks good on my LCD monitor.

BTW, didn't Pioneer quit making Plasma TVs?

 

[Throckmorton]

I am not sure if they recommended it solely on black levels. Even when I bought my 2006 Panasonic Plasma 42inch 1366x768, there was not a single LCD I found that had fast enough response times for sports and as good of a picture quality overall.

Black levels are still very important because you get full preservation of shadow and highlight detail.

Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQdBpZnwfg

OK, they'd also argue that the "picture quality" was better. To me, interpolation from 1920x1080 or 1280x720 square pixels to oddball 1024x768 rectangular pixels = bad picture quality. Native or nothing.

 

[Obsoleet]

Don't forget burn in, weight, leaks, flicker, fading, RFI, and they are less energy efficient. LCDs don't haves those problems.

Besides it's a almost a moot point, Plasma is heading towards obsolescence and fewer companies even make them anymore. LCDs have won the format war.

Yes, burn in. I've left my TV paused during a game for hours. I have no permanent burn in.
Yes, weight, my plasma weighed a total of 8 to 10lbs more than the same size LCD (backbreaking!)
Leaks? huh. Flicker? Again, foreign to my plasma owning eyes. Same with fading.
Energy has caught up dramatically, the difference is negligible now.

Only the tiny corporations of LG, Samsung and Panasonic make plasma. Yes, LCD has won (with uniformed consumers).

You know, I've actually put the time into researching my TV, plasma vs LCD... and you named all the ancient crap that is so long gone it's basically just old propoganda now.

Let's name a valid and real LCD advantage, shall we? Since I'm a non-LCD user and seem to know more than the (completely uninformed..) LCD fanboys.. Brightness. If you plan on putting your TV in a sunroom, you should get an LCD.

That said, mine sits next to 2 8foot windows everyday, and doesnt fade or washout at all.. plasma has made improvements there too.

But sunroom/greenhouse use? Get an LCD. That's about the only merit they have left. Other than being widely available and cheaply pumped out of vast factories.

 

[jacktesterson]

I use my Plasma on my HTPC as a Monitor all the time. I'm typing this now on it with my wireless keyboard.


No burn in problems or image retention at all and I sometimes surf for hours on my Plasma.

Orbital as pretty much taken these issues out of most quality Plasma TV's.

My father just bought a new 1080p Samsung LED LCD TV and I still don't think it compares to my TV's picture.

My TV is going on 3 yrs old and I paid $2400 for it.

 

[Arcanedeath]

I have a 50" 1080P Pioneer Kuro 9G and I'll put that aganist just about any mondern LCD and take my Kuro and thats considering I've had it for around 2 years now and I think its still one of the best 50" TV's ever made . It still compares well PQ wise to the top of the line current 2010 models from other makers and it's black level doesn't get worse over time like the Panny's.

Plasma FTW!