LCD TV for use as a PC monitor?

[ItsAlive]

I have been looking to get a new monitor and since i was going to spend around $400 or so, I was wondering if an LCD TV would be a better purchase. I currently dont own a TV and will be needing to buy one. I was just wondering if this TV would work well for a PC monitor. I will be mainly using it for web browsing and gaming.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanx.

 

[Powermoloch]

yup, it has a dvi port after all

 

[Peter]

The one caveat is that not all graphics cards are able to generate exactly 1366 pixels across. Until recently, most graphics engines were limited to horizontal resolutions that are a multiple of eight.

So if your graphics card does 1360 or 1368 because it can't do 1366, and if the monitor then scales that to 1366, things are going to look not very good. Scaling by such a minimal amount introduces awful artefacts.

 

[ItsAlive]

This TV says it supports 1280x768 resolution for the PC connection......if i was to run at 1280x768 rez would it look poor? Thanx

 

[Peter]

LCD and Plasma screens, unlike CRTs, have their number of display pixels cast in hardware. When you're serving them a different resolution, they'll interpolate the rest and that isn't going to look anywhere near as good as native resolution.

I'd avoid a display that doesn't provide its native resolution. In that particular case, where the vertical resolution is fully used and the horizontal is short by 86 pixels, you'll possibly get black borders left and right, but no interpolated scaling. It'll look fine, but it won't use all of the monitor's width.

 

[ItsAlive]

So it should display at 1280x768 just as it would on a monitor supporting that rez? Accept for the black borders on the horizontal?

I'm tryin to determine if i should get the TV over this monitor. I was considering between the TV and that particular monitor because the Samsung is a 4:3, however the TV when run at 1280x768 would output to 4:3......The difference between the TV and monitor is around $150 and if i were to purchase the Samsung I'd be looking to spend considerably more on a TV where as if i get the TV and use it for a monitor then i will be killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Peter
So if your graphics card does 1360 or 1368 because it can't do 1366, and if the monitor then scales that to 1366, things are going to look not very good. Scaling by such a minimal amount introduces awful artefacts.

Granted, being able to run 1360 or 1368 with a 3 pixels of width blank on each side or 1 pixel of width off the screen on each side will look better; but what artifacts are you speaking of? Most TVs I've seen scale the image a little bit even when the source resolution is equal to the the native resolution of the display simply to avoid overscan issues, as long as the display is using good scaling hardware I can't say I've seen any nasty artifacts.

Originally posted by: ItsAlive
This TV says it supports 1280x768 resolution for the PC connection......if i was to run at 1280x768 rez would it look poor? Thanx

That would screw up the aspect ratio making everything look a little short and fat since the display is 16:9 but the resolution is ~15:9. To get a proper looking image on a 1280x768 resolution 16:9 display you need a 16:9 signal resolution and a good scaler either built into the display or hooked up in line to it.

 

[Fraggable]

I have a 23" LCD TV that I used as a computer monitor for months. it runs at 1280 X 768 and looks just fine via DVI.

any current video card shouldn't have any trouble with 1366 X 768.

If I run my TV at something like 1280 X 760, it puts black bars on the side, it doesn't stretch it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ItsAlive
I was considering between the TV and that particular monitor because the Samsung is a 4:3, however the TV when run at 1280x768 would output to 4:3.

The TV when run at 1280x768 could most likely output that as 4:3 pillarboxed, but that would make everything look really tall and skinny.

 

[Peter]

I recall that only the latest cards (as in ATI X1xxx series) can do arbitrary horizontal width, while all older ones can't.

Check your graphics card's "List All Modes" button before you make that purchase.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Peter
So if your graphics card does 1360 or 1368 because it can't do 1366, and if the monitor then scales that to 1366, things are going to look not very good. Scaling by such a minimal amount introduces awful artefacts.

Granted, being able to run 1360 or 1368 with a 3 pixels of width blank on each side or 1 pixel of width off the screen on each side will look better; but what artifacts are you speaking of? Most TVs I've seen scale the image a little bit even when the source resolution is equal to the the native resolution of the display simply to avoid overscan issues, as long as the display is using good scaling hardware I can't say I've seen any nasty artifacts.

You'll notice when you're using it as a computer monitor, for text, webpages and somesuch. In typical TV applications, with low contrast and no fine detail and most importantly not sitting up close, you won't notice.

 

[ItsAlive]

Originally posted by: Peter
I recall that only the latest cards (as in ATI X1xxx series) can do arbitrary horizontal width, while all older ones can't.

Check your graphics card's "List All Modes" button before you make that purchase.

Where would i find "List All Modes" button? In Catalyst Control Center?

Found it.....it supports 1360x768 and 1360x1024 but no 1366 rez and next highest rez is 1600x1200. It does however support 1280x768 and I also checked Oblivion since i play it the most.....It also supports 1280x768, 1360x768, and 1360x1024 rez.

I wonder if flashing to the XT bios would change the supported rez......cause I've had it running on the X1800XT bios before but i never checked the resolutions it supported.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: ItsAlive

Originally posted by: Peter
I recall that only the latest cards (as in ATI X1xxx series) can do arbitrary horizontal width, while all older ones can't.

Check your graphics card's "List All Modes" button before you make that purchase.

Where would i find "List All Modes" button? In Catalyst Control Center?

Found it.....it supports 1360x768 and 1360x1024 but no 1366 rez and next highest rez is 1600x1200. It does however support 1280x768 and I also checked Oblivion since i play it the most.....It also supports 1280x768, 1360x768, and 1360x1024 rez.

I wonder if flashing to the XT bios would change the supported rez......cause I've had it running on the X1800XT bios before but i never checked the resolutions it supported.

My 1800XT shows the same 2 yours does, no 1366 X anything. Maybe you could create a custom resolution?

 

[ItsAlive]

Well i would be perfectly happy if it looks nice on 1280x768 even with the black borders. I know i wont be able to play at anything higher than that but really 1024x768 is what i normally run on so it shouldnt be a problem unless the picture is distorted/elongated or what not.

 

[Rage187]

just create your own resolution

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Peter

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Peter
So if your graphics card does 1360 or 1368 because it can't do 1366, and if the monitor then scales that to 1366, things are going to look not very good. Scaling by such a minimal amount introduces awful artefacts.

Granted, being able to run 1360 or 1368 with a 3 pixels of width blank on each side or 1 pixel of width off the screen on each side will look better; but what artifacts are you speaking of? Most TVs I've seen scale the image a little bit even when the source resolution is equal to the the native resolution of the display simply to avoid overscan issues, as long as the display is using good scaling hardware I can't say I've seen any nasty artifacts.

You'll notice when you're using it as a computer monitor, for text, webpages and somesuch. In typical TV applications, with low contrast and no fine detail and most importantly not sitting up close, you won't notice.

Notice what? I've been using fixed pixel displays for years and using scaling in grpahics editing even longer and I'm honestly at a loss to what you are implying when you suggest "nasty artifacts."

Originally posted by: ItsAlive
Well i would be perfectly happy if it looks nice on 1280x768 even with the black borders. I know i wont be able to play at anything higher than that but really 1024x768 is what i normally run on so it shouldnt be a problem unless the picture is distorted/elongated or what not.

If the display has the option to run with black boarders to provide the proper aspect ratio then you'll be better off just using 1360x768 than 1280x768 as the former doesn't need as big of boarders. But I'm pretty sure Peter is right in saying that your X1xxx can do 1366x768, in which case running with any pillarboxing would be unnecessary.

 

[Peter]

I've seen LCD TVs that were silly enough to scale 1360 to 1368 ... and that .59% upscaling did have a noticeable impact on small text and the occasional dither pattern. In particular, it made "ClearType" font rendering totally unbearable. YMMV.

 

[Rage187]

I have a 32" I used as a pc monitor for a little while, I'll post pics for you so yu can see what the desktop looks like at 1366x768.

EDIT: Forgive any text on the screen, it looks perfectly fine in person.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/rage187/100_0424.JPG
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/rage187/100_0418.JPG
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/rage187/100_0413.JPG
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/rage187/100_0408.JPG

all games I tried supported 1366x768 out of the box.

 

[ItsAlive]

Wow that looks kicka$$.....What kind of graphics card were you using?

I was looking around at LCDs and found an LG L1950B for a good price, but on newegg its listed with different specs than on buy.com. However, buy.com has it listed as Flatron professional series and newegg doesnt say. So, I was kind of wondering if there is a difference between specs on a professional series LG or if its just a marketing scheme and buy.com has the specs listed wrong?

 

[Rage187]

I was using a 7800GT

games run butter smooth at 1366x768, and they look fantastic, not to mention you cna max out most graphic settings. I play at 1920x1080 now and miss the performance I got at the lower ress.

 

[ItsAlive]

Yeah i have my desktop set to 1600x1200 but i normally game on 1024x768 and even if i bump it up to 1600x1200 i dont notice much difference in Image Quality, but my FPS drops quite a bit.

 

[Imyourzero]

I recently bought the 32" Westinghouse LCD TV, and so far I'm (bah da bah bah bah) lovin' it for TV and XBOX 360 use but when I tried using it with my X800 XT (using its S-Video out), the picture was a bit blurrier than I thought. It's probably either my video card or my inexperience with using a TV as a PC display though, because otherwise the thing has a stellar picture. I want to keep working on it because a 32" monitor would be frickin' schweet.

 

[Ichigo]

I don't get it. If 1360 were upscaled to 1366, wouldn't technically only 6 pixels of the 1360 horizontal resolution be doubled to meet the 1366 resolution? Wouldn't there only be artifacts in those places?

 

[ItsAlive]

Well i decided to just go with the Samsung 20.1" LCD monitor......I had planned on gettin this one before I even got the idea to try a TV, though it will be more costly in the end. I think the 1600x1200 resolution will be great and today it popped up with a $60 mail in rebate.....so that pushed me over the edge in that respect. Total cost minus mail in rebate will come to $295 shipped. I think i got a pretty good deal.

Thanks everyone for your input and support.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
I don't get it. If 1360 were upscaled to 1366, wouldn't technically only 6 pixels of the 1360 horizontal resolution be doubled to meet the 1366 resolution? Wouldn't there only be artifacts in those places?

Now that would look really ugly.