Vizio XVT Series as Gaming Monitor

[BreadFan]

Searched the forums but haven't found any solid info. Looking at possibly buying a vizio 32" xvt tv (model is SV320XVT) and using it for my main display on my PC. The reason is the picture is outstanding plus it runs at 120hz. I currently have the 47" model as my main tv. I guess I could take my pc out to the living room and check the picture out but before I do that, has anyone ever used one of these models as their main gaming monitor on their pc?

 

[brblx]

havn't used that TV, but you should know that you're only going to be able to play games at 60hz. afaik we still don't have any actual 120hz TV's, all inputs are 60hz.

 

[BreadFan]

So this is false advertising: http://www.vizio.com/flat-panel-hdtvs/sv320xvt.html

or are you saying that connecting the tv to your video card through hdmi will still only produce 60hz instead of 120hz?

 

[mwmorph]

All TVs only do 60hz. The 120hz or 240hz claims are done by taking at least 2 frames in advance, delaying showing them and than mixing them up to get 4 or 8 frames out of it.

TVs can be bad ideas for gaming monitors, especially ones like there where you're guranteed to have at least some input lag.

 

[BreadFan]

Saw someone at quakecon this year with a 32" tv as their display. The picture was unbelievable (which gave me the idea to give it a try). As far as input lag, how does it not effect console gaming? Guess I'll have to take my pc to the living room and check out how the picture looks.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: BreadFan
Saw someone at quakecon this year with a 32" tv as their display. The picture was unbelievable (which gave me the idea to give it a try). As far as input lag, how does it not effect console gaming? Guess I'll have to take my pc to the living room and check out how the picture looks.

Depends on the TV, most are very good about the lag, some are not. I have no idea about the TV in your post, but I would think that it would be on the higher end of input lag due to the extra post processing needed (maybe up to 50ms?)

Also remember, console games are either
a) slower paced, for example console RTS are not APM based as are many PC RTS games
b) auto aim, IIRC most if not all console shooters have some sort ominor aiming assist so it's easier to hit enemies (consequently this is why games that are on the Windows live platform and direct ports of Xbox games aren't cross platform multiplayer enabled)

 

[Fox5]

TVs suck for gaming imo. They tend to have poor refresh rates which are annoying for anything fast paced, but suits most slower paced console games.

 

[Zensal]

I know DVI can only handle 1680x1050 @75Hz or 1080p @ 60Hz before it is maxed out. You would need to have a connection with twice the bandwidth.

 

[JoshGuru7]

For PC gaming, I recommend a 30" monitor over a larger HDTV any day. I have a 30" Dell monitor (2560x1600) for PC gaming a couple feet to the left of a 42" Sharp Aquos HDTV (1600x1080). I've tried it both ways but all of the PC games I play these days (Aion, Anno 1404, Civ 4, E:TW) look and feel better at a higher resolution even though the overall screen size is a lot smaller.

The only reason I would recommend a TV for PC gaming would be if you're going to be sitting 6 feet away on a coach with a wireless keyboard and mouse, and at that point I would suggest getting the console version instead anyway.

 

[BreadFan]

Hooked up my pc to a 47" this evening (this model: http://www.vizio.com/flat-panel-hdtvs/sv471xvt.html) and the picture was amazing. Didn't notice any input lag at all (played UT3). Anyone know a different or better game to try that would show any deficiencies? Bear in mind that I won't have network access during this test. Starting to seriously think about pulling the trigger on this.