Plasma vs 120hz input (3d) monitor for PC

[snuuggles]

Hi, this may have been addressed before, but I can't find it. I'm interested in getting the best display device for playing PC games and some occasional browsing/text editing (85% games/15% other, might even be 90/10).

I'm interested in the new 27" 120hz (3d) monitors coming out soon because supposedly 120hz input makes a huge difference in motion resolution, which is something that I really want. However I've also heard that plasma tvs are excellent at motion resolution, and for the same price (6-700) instead of getting a 27" 120hz monitor I could get a 42" plasma.

Notes about my situation:

- I'm *not* talking about 120hz TVs. Those will not accept a 120hz signal. I'm talking about 120hz monitors such as the upcoming Acer hn274h which will accept a true 120hz signal from the PC.

- I sit ~4' away from my current display (32" 720p LCD TV). This is something I can easily adjust back or forth, so the pixel density is a non-issue for me. Both are 1080p so it'll just be a matter of sifting my seat... right? Please lmk if there's something I'm not considering

- I don't care about color reproduction, viewing angles, energy consumption. All I want is excellent input lag, motion resolution, and black-and-white text sharpness (for when I'm coding).

- I don't care about 3d.

- resolution is a non-issue. I'd prefer 1920x1200 but what are you going to do. I actually found the 32" 720p TV somewhat acceptible, so 1080p will be a huge step up for me.

- I'm aware that plasma have some image retention, and also the potential for image burn-in, but I'm looking at the new plasmas (like the samsung p42st30) which I think will mitigate most of these issues, even if I do some text editing for an hour or two at a time my understanding is that image burn will not be a big issue unless I left it on all day.

I'm really torn, the Plasma seems to be the better value for me:

- bigger
- faster pixel response
- potentially lower input lag

The things I'm concerned about with choosing plasma:

- noise, how far away do I need to be to avoid the "buzz" I hear about
- text clarity. My understanding is that there are two things plasmas tend to do that may affect this: "dithering" - not sure what that is, and 4:2:2 subsampling which samples colors at *half* rate of b/w. Not exactly sure if either of those are relevant to me. I only care about gaming and some text editing.
- connection reliability. I've hooked up a couple of TVs to my computer via HDMI and I have had what I assume are HDMI sync issues. I've never had a problem with DVI to DVI, but going from DVI (260gtx) to HDMI (various sony/samsung TVs) I've had problems like the computer is turned on but the TV doesn't get the signal and doesn't wake up. I'm assuming that might be resolved by upgrading to a modern hdmi-equipped GPU, which I plan on doing soon. LMK if this is a common issue.

Anyways, sorry for the long, somewhat incoherent post, if there's someone out there with first-hand experience with *both* technologies I would be extremely interested in your input. In the end, I almost wish I could just get a 36" widescreen CRT since that would really fit the bill for me.

 

[Vdubchaos]

#1, do NOT directly compare high Refresh rate of a Plasma to LCD. Plasma refresh rate = BS

Also, keep in mind that Monitors and TVs are 2 different beasts.

Monitors will ALWAYS look MUCH better vs TVs. Mostly due to size of pixles, but in general clarity, picture...everything you can imagine looks MUCH better on a Monitor vs TV.

Mind you TVs don't look BAD, just nowhere as good as Monitors.

I suggest you go with 27" 120hz if you can swing it. They are expensive and not many choices. It is a very new technology that hasn't really settled yet so you are risking A LOT (reliability and money).

I'm kind of waiting for 120hz to become mainstream and have lots of choices to choose from.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Even if plasma did have a super fast refresh rate it has no way of accepting a signal of more than 1920x1080p at 60hz thanks to the bandwidth limitations of hdmi. There is only one way of getting true 120hz and that's pc. I used a HDTV for a long time as a pc monitor and it's great. The text will always be a little blurry but gaming was cool as heck at 42". I bought a 120hz monitor and quickly gave up the HDTV even as much as I enjoyed it.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Even if plasma did have a super fast refresh rate it has no way of accepting a signal of more than 1920x1080p at 60hz thanks to the bandwidth limitations of hdmi. There is only one way of getting true 120hz and that's pc. I used a HDTV for a long time as a pc monitor and it's great. The text will always be a little blurry but gaming was cool as heck at 42". I bought a 120hz monitor and quickly gave up the HDTV even as much as I enjoyed it.

Correct, same here.

I played few times on my 40" and it was cool...until you go back to monitor and see how much more beautiful everything is.

 

[RussianSensation]

#1, do NOT directly compare high Refresh rate of a Plasma to LCD. Plasma refresh rate = BS

The actual 600Hz refresh rate may be a marketing term to communicate to the consumer the main point - that Plasma is many many times faster (we are talking in the hundreds/to thousands of times) in terms of response time (motion) than the fastest LCD/LED. This is actually a fact. The latest Samsung and LG plasma TVs have a rated pixel response time of just 0.001msec. So it really doesn't matter how you slice it. Even if the plasma is stuck at 60Hz (but the pixel is pulsed 10 times per hertz resulting in the equivalent of a 600 Hz refresh rate), it will still have a far faster response time than an LCD with a 120 or 240Hz refresh rate. There is no point in comparing 60Hz on a Plasma to a 240Hz LCD. If you understand that Plasma and LCD are totally different technologies, you will realize that comparing their refresh rates is a pointless exercise.

Unless the OP cares about 120Hz for 3D, I would go with the 42 inch Plasma screen, but that is because he will be gaming 85% of the time (otherwise I would fear burn in over say 5+ hours of office work). The other point is that some people prefer a larger monitor for games/movies over a smaller monitor with higher resolution. At least this is how I feel. In addition, Plasma simply has a superior picture quality to an LCD. An LCD will not have the same black levels as a Plasma. Better black levels will make games and movies look better. After gaming on a 37 inch LCD 1080P screen and a 42 inch Panasonic Plasma, I wouldn't consider a 27 inch screen even if it had a 2560x1600 resolution. To each his own

 

[Vdubchaos]

The actual 600Hz refresh rate may be a marketing term to communicate to the consumer the main point - that Plasma is many many times faster (we are talking in the hundreds/to thousands of times) in terms of response time (motion) than the fastest LCD/LED. This is actually a fact. The latest Samsung and LG plasma TVs have a rated pixel response time of just 0.001msec. So it really doesn't matter how you slice it. Even if the plasma is stuck at 60Hz (but the pixel is pulsed 10 times per hertz resulting in the equivalent of a 600 Hz refresh rate), it will still have a far faster response time than an LCD with a 120 or 240Hz refresh rate. There is no point in comparing 60Hz on a Plasma to a 240Hz LCD. If you understand that Plasma and LCD are totally different technologies, you will realize that comparing their refresh rates is a pointless exercise.

Unless the OP cares about 120Hz for 3D, I would go with the 42 inch Plasma screen, but that is because he will be gaming 85% of the time (otherwise I would fear burn in over say 5+ hours of office work). The other point is that some people prefer a larger monitor for games/movies over a smaller monitor with higher resolution. At least this is how I feel. In addition, Plasma simply has a superior picture quality to an LCD. An LCD will not have the same black levels as a Plasma. Better black levels will make games and movies look better. After gaming on a 37 inch LCD 1080P screen and a 42 inch Panasonic Plasma, I wouldn't consider a 27 inch screen even if it had a 2560x1600 resolution. To each his own

Correct, thanks for clearing that up.

It's also important to mention that LCD TV 120/240hz is not TRUE hardware refresh....software.

And monitor 120hz is actual Hardware.

Although at first I loved gaming on my TV (and by all means it's nice).....i prefer monitor. If you put a monitor on the side of a TV and compare side by side the difference is clear. Has a lot to do with Pixel size, clarity and simply not being as vibrant as monitor.

HOWEVER, keep in mind that I have to move my PC to play on TV (which I haven't been doing much at all)...heck I haven't been gaming much lately.

If I needed a multifunctional device to serve as a TV/PC etc....Large LCD would be my preference. Also I would take large LCD over Eyefinity set up as well.

 

[snuuggles]

Hmmm, so I am aware that the plasma is limited to 60hz input, which is less than the 120hz input of the new monitors. However, my impression is that the 60hz plasma is discernably better than 60hz LCD displays in resolving moving images and text.

Is the 120hz monitor *that* much better at motion resolution than the Plasma? Though the refresh rate is a huge aspect of that, I suspect there are other things that affect this, and I'm wondering if the plasma is better at some of these other things such that the net result is "just as good".

As I said, I am currently using a 32" 720p TV as a monitor, and what I'd ideally want is a slightly larger(36-40"), 1080p display with much, much better motion resolution and input lag. Plasma seems to deliver this, but I'm afraid that there might be some hidden issues with displaying static text (other than pixel size and image burn-in) that I'm unaware of.

So because of that unknown, I was considering "settling" for a 27" 120hz-input LCD even though it's smaller and comes with features I'll never use (3d).

I guess I really just should bring my laptop in to BestBuy and hook it up to a plasma. That would likely tell me pretty quickly if there is going to be a problem.

Anyways, thanks for your input, if there's anyone (anyone!?!) who has actually used both technologies for gaming and Text and can compare them that would be awesome. Thanks!

 

[RussianSensation]

Although at first I loved gaming on my TV (and by all means it's nice).....i prefer monitor. If you put a monitor on the side of a TV and compare side by side the difference is clear. Has a lot to do with Pixel size, clarity and simply not being as vibrant as monitor.

You hit the nail on the head here. At the end of the day, personal preference is going to come into play. Some people prefer monitors over TVs, some prefer LCDs over Plasma, etc. nothing wrong with that. :thumbsup:

snuuggles, it certainly wouldn't hurt if you tested out the Plasma in the store. At least you will instantly be able to tell if the text is too fuzzy for your liking, etc.

 

[snuuggles]

The actual 600Hz refresh rate may be a marketing term to communicate to the consumer the main point - that Plasma is many many times faster (we are talking in the hundreds/to thousands of times) in terms of response time (motion) than the fastest LCD/LED. This is actually a fact. The latest Samsung and LG plasma TVs have a rated pixel response time of just 0.001msec. So it really doesn't matter how you slice it. Even if the plasma is stuck at 60Hz (but the pixel is pulsed 10 times per hertz resulting in the equivalent of a 600 Hz refresh rate), it will still have a far faster response time than an LCD with a 120 or 240Hz refresh rate. There is no point in comparing 60Hz on a Plasma to a 240Hz LCD. If you understand that Plasma and LCD are totally different technologies, you will realize that comparing their refresh rates is a pointless exercise.

Unless the OP cares about 120Hz for 3D, I would go with the 42 inch Plasma screen, but that is because he will be gaming 85% of the time (otherwise I would fear burn in over say 5+ hours of office work). The other point is that some people prefer a larger monitor for games/movies over a smaller monitor with higher resolution. At least this is how I feel. In addition, Plasma simply has a superior picture quality to an LCD. An LCD will not have the same black levels as a Plasma. Better black levels will make games and movies look better. After gaming on a 37 inch LCD 1080P screen and a 42 inch Panasonic Plasma, I wouldn't consider a 27 inch screen even if it had a 2560x1600 resolution. To each his own

Woops, so I just posted w/o seeing your response.

So, just to be 100% clear, the only "problems" with using the plasma as a monitor would be:

- size of pixels
- burn-in potential

The reason I ask is that it's been implied in other posts two things which I cannot get much information about:

1. Plasmas "dither". Like, does that mean that static images have weird, annoying shiftyness? I just want to be certain I can look at text for more than a couple of minutes without going out of my mind. Max would be an hour or two.

2. Plasmas use 4:2:2 sampling, meaning they sample black and white pixels 4 times and color pixels 2 times meaning... uh, what? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it matters. But I do know that LCDs use 4:4:4 sampling which is better. Just not sure it matters for my purposes.

Anyways, I am completely on the same page as you as far as what's important. One last question, which plasma did you use? I'm considering the new p42st30, I'm just hoping the input lag is low on that one.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Personally I never had any issues with Blurring or Ghosting or response time with my 40" 60hz LCD. So that's never been an issue.

What 120hz addresses (in monitors) is general movement (mouse, if you move your screen quickly) as well as general response. Which makes it better gaming experience.

Is it a must? doubt it.....no 60hz monitor/TV ever gave me any response issues.

is it better? yes

Same thing for my 32" 1080p LG TV we have. Great response time in gaming. No ghosting/blurring of any kind.

 

[RussianSensation]

- size of pixels

That's 1. On a 42 inch screen, 1080P resolution would be unacceptable to many people. I am fine with it.

- burn-in potential

True. While newer plasmas have better burn-in prevention/protection, this is still a problem if you keep a static image for a long time on the screen. Some of the newer LG models have a "white" filter (i.e., you press a button and the screen is filled in white and the burn-in disappears).

1. Plasmas "dither". Like, does that mean that static images have weird, annoying shiftyness? I just want to be certain I can look at text for more than a couple of minutes without going out of my mind. Max would be an hour or two.

I used a 2006 Panasonic 42 inch model. I can't compare the text on it to my LCD because its resolution was only 1024x768, but there was no shiftiness. I would say your best bet would be to check out in the store how text looks. Picture quality wise, this was far superior to my LCD (but then my LCD is a budget model).

However, recently I had a chance to hook up my laptop through HDMI to my friend's LG 60PK250 and it looks great.

Not sure about the sampling issue. For games and movies, I prefer Plasma. For office work, I prefer the LCD. I have the backlight on my LCD turned down to just 40% because otherwise the brightness makes it too uncomfortable for office tasks.

I'm considering the new p42st30, I'm just hoping the input lag is low on that one.

Looks good. "Update Jan 7, 2010: I spoke with Panasonic's rep at the booth and found out a few more preliminary details about the new plasmas, including conformation that the ST30 an GT30 use the same panel, and so should exhibit very similar picture quality aside from THX."

Something for you to think about is 2010 models often sell for discounted prices now that 2011 models are launching. You may even be able to step up to a 47 or a 50 inch model if you can handle the size.

 

[snuuggles]

Thanks guys. I think I'll check out the new plasmas when they come to my local big-box. Might even take one home since they have the 30-day return policy. Seems like this is the kind of thing I'll need to take advantage of, since as you said, it does come down to a subjective judgement.

Still wish I could sit down with both to test them, maybe one day...

Thank you!

 

[sMiLeYz]

I have both, hooked up to my computer.

Plasmas you get deeper, more vibrant colors, blacks are amazing. Problems is the huge dot pitch is a drag, theres also slight shiftiness on desktop. No input lag, minimal ghosting. Slight image retention, and chance of burn in made me stop using it for gaming on the pc.

My Acer 120hz is amazing for FPS's, almost no ghosting, almost no input lag. Problem is that it's a TN monitor, horrible viewing angles, slight backlight bleeding in dark scenes.

Despite the problems with the Acer, it is to me almost the perfect gaming monitor. 120hz makes an incredible difference, the colors are vibrant, besides dark scenes in certain games I have zero complaints about gaming on the Acer.

I play PS3, XBOX games on the plasma and pc games on the Acer. This my recommendation, the plasma isn't good enough for PC gaming.

 

[Dark Shroud]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a 3D plasma be able to accept 120hz input?

 

[Dice144]

No it uses 60hz x10 multi.

 

[snuuggles]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't a 3D plasma be able to accept 120hz input?

Man, I wish! As far as I can determine, *no TV* will accept a 120 input. The current HDMI spec doesn't provide for 1080p@120hz.

Most 3d players and the Ps3 use a format called "frame packing" to send an extra-wide image 24 times per second, which the tv then splits and displays one after another.

the xbox360 uses something called "side-by-side" which accomplishes the same thing.

The kicker is that you just know it would cost next-to-nothing for these guys to simply include a DVI-D port on the back of these TVs and accept the 120hz input. It seems logical that most of the cost of 120hz display is already built in to the 120hz tvs, but instead of taking a 120hz input, they simply take a 60hz (or 24hz) input and insert duplicate frames, adding input lag and not really improving the image.

But I could be wrong, I mean, if it were really cheap you'd think one single TV manufacturer would have already done it.

 

[snuuggles]

I have both, hooked up to my computer.

...

I play PS3, XBOX games on the plasma and pc games on the Acer. This my recommendation, the plasma isn't good enough for PC gaming.

Great info, thanks so much. I think you've convinced me, I'll wait on the hn274h.

 

[NoQuarter]

Personally I never had any issues with Blurring or Ghosting or response time with my 40" 60hz LCD. So that's never been an issue.

Try doing the readability test on this:
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/testsoftware/pixperan.html

On plasma I can max out the readability test at 30, on LCD the best I can do is 8. Never tried a 120hz LCD, would be interested in the results.


In games the blurring/ghosting isn't evident like it used to be until you really start to analyze why you have to stop turning the camera to get clarity and focus on on-screen objects instead of being able to read them or make out details while turning. When you're turning the camera the objects are getting the same blurring problem the text or the race car in that test show.

 

[snuuggles]

Try doing the readability test on this:
http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/testsoftware/pixperan.html

On plasma I can max out the readability test at 30, on LCD the best I can do is 8. Never tried a 120hz LCD, would be interested in the results.

neat! Would be very interested if someone such as smileyz would test on both plasma and 120hz LCD. Seems to me like you'd need the same person testing both to have a really good comparison of the two...