Does size matter? Or is it the 144hz motion in the ocean?

[T002 Tyrant]

In the gaming forum I keep hearing. "I play this on my 42/55/65 etc inch TV"

I kinda went along with it not to feel left out, but now I realise it's possibly a replacement for measuring penis size?

Surely whatever you play on makes you happy and having a 24 inch PC monitor or 65 inch TV really at the end of the day it's what we can afford and we all enjoy the games regardless?

In some cases a smaller PC monitor with a higher refresh rate brings a far better and pleasurable experience surely?

Anyway not quite sure what the point in this thread is but perhaps it's a good girthy discussion point on TV size/resolution and refresh rate and why some feel compelled to state the size of their television?

 

[White Glint]

How about a big screen with a big refresh rate.

 

[aevanhoe]

In the gaming forum I keep hearing. "I play this on my 42/55/65 etc inch TV"

Surely whatever you play on makes you happy and having a 24 inch PC monitor or 65 inch TV really at the end of the day it's what we can afford and we all enjoy the games regardless?

Click to shrink...

Of course. People have insane fun on 6.5" screens as well. Wherever you play, as long as you're having fun.

In some cases a smaller PC monitor with a higher refresh rate brings a far better and pleasurable experience surely?

Click to shrink...

For me, I would take large screen size over high refresh rates. But I'm a gamer who looks for immersion, enjoys the spectacle, appreciates the art. If you're a competitive gamer, higher refresh rates matter more to you. These are not comparable, it's like saying "surely, a truck brings a better experience than a race car".... It depends on what you appreciate, need or have.

Anyway not quite sure what the point in this thread is but perhaps it's a good girthy discussion point on TV size/resolution and refresh rate and why some feel compelled to state the size of their television?

Click to shrink...

People like to flex, but also some are genuinely happy about their gear. I see a lot of people saying "it runs great on my 2080Ti" and stuff like that, too. That's just how people talk. You shouldn't feel bad about it, in the end, it's how much you're enjoying your game time that matters.

 

[XR.]

Large screens don't do much for me in terms of gaming, personally. I do have a TV and a 90" projector screen but the latter is pretty much only used for movies and party games--which it's phenomenal for--but for dedicated gaming sessions I prefer to be fairly close to a 27" monitor with a high refresh-rate at >=1440p.

Size doesn't matter; what matters is the combined viewing distance, resolution and size. ;)

 

[dsk1210]

55"+ at 120hz is the gaming nirvana at the moment in my opinion.

 

[caff!!!]

I have a cheapish LG ultrawide at 75hz, the expanded viewspace is amazing and not something I'd give up any time soon

 

[Raiden]

Never looked at it this way, especially since big screens are so cheap now it would be stupid to brag about.

 

[orava]

Went 30" on my desktop a decade ago and can't really go back to smaller again. I also have a 65" tv but it really does not beat the large desktop monitor experience. Imo it's just so much more immersive.

 

[Deleted member 10795]

I've been quite heavily researching a new monitor over the last week or so, so have been reading a lot of threads and posts that involve discussion around screen sizes, resolutions, refresh rates etc. I honestly don't think I've seen anything even remotely shitty about any of it, or boastful. I think it's just interesting to see and hear what people are playing with, for the same reasons r/battlestations or the "Show Us Your Gaming Setup" thread are things. Also refresh rates and resolution tend to be tied to performance, which is just straight up useful to know for many, especially on PC.

I'm currently gaming on a 49" 4K QLED, but am actively wanting to downsize to either a 27" 1440/144hz or a 1440/100hz ultrawide. Screen size alone seems like such a small part of display chatter now, behind features like refresh rates, resolution, FreeSync etc.

 

[skeezx]

monitor i definitely want to go performance over size. i can't imagine ever going over 27" (with the baseline of 1440p/144hz per my $), currently downgraded to 23" after my 27" took an unexpected shit and i can't really say my gaming experience is downgraded

tv i'll willfully make sacrifices for sake of size but saying that as a console --> living room, pc --> desktop gamer who plays like 6ft from my tv

 

[tatwo]

My tv can do 1080p at 120hz.

But I prefer playing on my 34inch 100hz ultrawide.

 

[パンダさん]

Why not both?
- This Post was sponsored by the LG C9 Fanclub

I've got my PC hooked up to my PC, so I can enjoy the best of two worlds.
If I had a desk for my PC, I think I'd get a 30 inch+ ultrawide (21:9) screen with 100hz+.

For me, I would take large screen size over high refresh rates. But I'm a gamer who looks for immersion, enjoys the spectacle, appreciates the art. If you're a competitive gamer, higher refresh rates matter more to you. These are not comparable, it's like saying "surely, a truck brings a better experience than a race car".... It depends on what you appreciate, need or have.

Click to shrink...

High refresh rate isn't for competitive gamers only, it enhances the whole feeling and experience.
Games just feel better at higher refresh rates.

 

[EvilBoris]

I'd rather not have as big a Tv as I have, but unfortunately the modern specs are attached to larger screens.

You can't get reasonably priced and quality smaller HDR, high refresh rate displays.

So if you are wanting the image quality to match your gaming PC, you are at a bit of a lose end but to buy a giant home display

 

[aevanhoe]

Why not both?
- This Post was sponsored by the LG C9 Fanclub

I've got my PC hooked up to my PC, so I can enjoy the best of two worlds.
If I had a desk for my PC, I think I'd get a 30 inch+ ultrawide (21:9) screen with 100hz+.


High refresh rate isn't for competitive gamers only, it enhances the whole feeling and experience.
Games just feel better at higher refresh rates.

Click to shrink...

Games also just feel better on bigger screens. I just said I value visual immersion more than refresh rates, why does this forum have so much trouble understanding this? I've had people trying to convince me I'm somehow "wrong". I'm not wrong, for me the screen size and screen quality is more important than super high refresh rates beyond 60hz.

I would argue that most non-competitive gamers would enjoy a large HDR screen with great contrast more than a 144hz smaller panel. You can disagree if you like.

 

[LCGeek]

Games also just feel better on bigger screens. I just said I value visual immersion more than refresh rates, why does this forum have so much trouble understanding this? I've had people trying to convince me I'm somehow "wrong". I'm not wrong, for me the screen size and screen quality is more important than super high refresh rates beyond 60hz.

I would argue that most non-competitive gamers would enjoy a large HDR screen with great contrast more than a 144hz smaller panel. You can disagree if you like.

Click to shrink...

You keep saying it in a way some will argue with you. The problem with hdr on pc isn't your display its the fact the companythat makes xbox and windows and uses the same kernel for both sucks at implementing on windows where as xbox has a pretty damn good implementation.

I'd argue most gamers if they saw a well balanced screen would prefer that but we live in reality where people get the things they do for a variety of reasons.

You also don't need a big screen for immersion unless you're sitting a good distance away from the screen. You can do what you but someone upclose to a monitor or in vr isn't losing immersion cause the screen is smaller you'd be a fool for seriously trying to argue that.

Giving yourself placebo efffects don't make it true.

I'd rather not have as big a Tv as I have, but unfortunately the modern specs are attached to larger screens.

You can't get reasonably priced and quality smaller HDR, high refresh rate displays.

So if you are wanting the image quality to match your gaming PC, you are at a bit of a lose end but to buy a giant home display

Click to shrink...

I bought a gdm fw900 near debut in the 90's was easily north of 2500 after taxes and shipping costs. Not a single pc display that I want that has hdr, colors, iq and speed gets within more than 1000$ of that monitor. Context is everything. You're getting quiet a resonable deal these days.

 

[dgrdsv]

I wouldn't trade size for refresh but I have a 30" monitor and a 55" TV so for me it's a simple problem really as I kinda have the size part covered for years now.

If I were to choose what to upgrade to from say a 24" 1080p monitor right now I would prioritize refresh over size, for two reasons:

1. You can have both bigger and faster monitor and/or TV now, with 27"/144Hz+ and 40"/120Hz+ displays now so it's an easy choice of both really.
2. Bigger screens tend to have lower speed meaning that you will have issues upgrading from a big but slow screen to a faster one even of similar size. This is less of an issue with upgrading from a smaller faster displays to a larger faster ones as sizes of faster displays are constantly growing.

 

[Yogi]

I had a 30" 4K60fps monitor years ago which now sits unplugged. Using my 24" 1080p 240Hz monitor for competitive games.
I plan on getting a big OLED TV (65" max - I'd like 55 to mitigate damage from 1080p scaling but 65 is really nice) this year though since they support 120Hz and I want nice colours that pop. If I can get away with it I might also get a 27" IPS 1440p 144Hz screen as a 2nd monitor for general desktop use as the colours are much nicer than this TN panel, but the motion clarity isn't nearly as good.

The problem with bigger screens is lower resolutions don't look as good as on a native screen (much worse actually) so you need a beefy system. And now that I'm used to higher refresh rates...I need a really, really beefy system. And if I want raytracing too...I'll need a super computer from the future.

Everything has its use...you "need" like 4 screens... bigger 1440p monitor, faster 1080p, big 4k tv, medium 1080p tv. Though I never use my current TV which sits a metre or two from the PC - the colours just don't do it for me anymore.

 

[LCGeek]

I wouldn't trade size for refresh but I have a 30" monitor and a 55" TV so for me it's a simple problem really as I kinda have the size part covered for years now.

If I were to choose what to upgrade to from say a 24" 1080p monitor right now I would prioritize refresh over size, for two reasons:

1. You can have both bigger and faster monitor and/or TV now, with 27"/144Hz+ and 40"/120Hz+ displays now so it's an easy choice of both really.
2. Bigger screens tend to have lower speed meaning that you will have issues upgrading from a big but slow screen to a faster one even of similar size. This is less of an issue with upgrading from a smaller faster displays to a larger faster ones as sizes of faster displays are constantly growing.

Click to shrink...

Right on

HDMI 2.1 has me so pumped tv makers are going in to a new golden age of display since CRTs and it's genuinely raising the bar in so many many ways.

Last year I finally moved on from 24" got sick of squint in 21:9 that I would play games on. a 32" 16:9 does all my needs when I sit close. The speed is costly but nowhere nearly as much as paying premiums in the last century.

I'm usually snobby about refreshrate but I've been play so much ps4 fgc the last 18 months 60hz doesn't get to me so much and I will always remember the purgatory of tvs or displays in the 80s. Monochrome and 256 colors ftw.

 

[Wackamole]

Large screens doesn't do much for me in terms of gaming. I have a 90" projector screen but it's pretty much only used for movies and party games, which it's phenomenal for. But for dedicated gaming sessions I prefer to be close to a 27" monitor with a high refresh-rate.

Size doesn't matter; what matters is the combined viewing distance, resolution and size. ;)

Click to shrink...

The Epson EH-TW3200 (discontinued, but cheap second hand) has a great response time.

 

[MazeHaze]

I have a nice rig hooked up to a 55 inch LG B7 so I can do 4k60, 1440p60, and 1080p 120hz. I have another gaming rig upstairs hooked up to a 27 inch monitor. I prefer the TV tbh

Edit: except for strategy games, and maybe something with a lot of text like Disco Elysium. I think I prefer to play those at a desk.

 

[PrismStar]

Size is way more important to me and TV >>>> monitor anyday

 

[Inugami]

Refresh rate means nothing so far if you console game, and is still likely not to mean much next gen (aside from VRR). I don't see the screen size comparison being used unless it's in reference to a discussion that also includes a debate about resolution, which makes sense.

 

[banter]

I'm assuming that OP is speaking of PC gaming since no current console can output higher than 60fps therefore any higher refresh rate is wasted. (And if you put it in the high refresh rate mode anyway it gets delegated to the TV's processor to generate "false frames" between actual frames which tends to lead to stuttering and ghosting when there are sudden pace changes)

So console gaming = tv size.

pc gaming = personal preference

 

[Linus815]

Games also just feel better on bigger screens. I just said I value visual immersion more than refresh rates, why does this forum have so much trouble understanding this? I've had people trying to convince me I'm somehow "wrong". I'm not wrong, for me the screen size and screen quality is more important than super high refresh rates beyond 60hz.

I would argue that most non-competitive gamers would enjoy a large HDR screen with great contrast more than a 144hz smaller panel. You can disagree if you like.

Click to shrink...

"why does this forum..."'

you are the one that made a sweeping statement about size being more immersive over high refresh rate. Lol.
Which is a flawed way of looking at it anyway. It mostly depends on how far you sit from the screen, you can percieve a 27" monitor to be bigger than a 50" TV if you sit too far away from the TV (which seems to be a common mistake).

High framerates absolutely do contribute to immersion too, i find it way harder to get immersed in a game running at 30 fps due to a lack of motion clarity while moving around.

 

[bionic77]

I somehow feel more connected with a game on a smaller monitor when I sit closer to the game. But I might just be weird.

I love big screens for movies and sports though. If the game is heavy on presentation and not that involved concerning gameplay (basically like a lot of AAA titles) then I also prefer the big screen. But for something competitive or difficult I like a smallerish screen and to sit closer to it.

 

[Iztok]

Both, obviously.

But I honestly can't go back to anything smaller than my 55'', even for PC gaming.

I've been on 42'' since like 2007, went 55'' a few years back and except on rare occasions at LAN parties when I'm on 24'', I feel like I've left smaller screens behind so long ago it may as well have been a different lifetime.

 

[Bomblord]

My PC is connected a 60hz 40" screen wall mounted. I have a papasan chair that is at just the right angle for comfortable gaming. I'm about to put a second TV up for a dual screen setup.

I have a small PC on that shelf and the TV is angled down now but you get the idea.

 

[Cleve]

I have a 65" 4k tv sitting in the same office/game room as my 27" 144hz 1440p monitor, both are good for different experiences. If I'm playing with a kb/m it's usually something that requires fast paced reactions and intense focus like CoD or DotA 2 so I'm on the smaller faster display. If I'm playing Monster Hunter or a platforming game it's usually with a gamepad on the couch with the TV. Size fits in to the discussion as an aspect of scale. A larger screen is nice for sitting further back, but again, for focus I do much better in a nice desk chair sitting close up where a tv that size would just spill completely out of my fov and be useless.

There's definitely people that talk about it to just brag, but that's easy enough to ignore. If you feel the need to go along with something to feel like you're not missing out, that's on you. It's just people talking about things they're exited about and wanting to share their experiences. It's an enthusiast forum, a bit of that is so be expected.

 

[Isee]

The optimal for me would be an ultrawide, with high, adaptive refresh rate and at least HDR 1000 certification.
But that thing costs 2500€, which is a bit too much imo.

For size versus refresh rate. Definitely refresh rate for me. I know, it's a cliche but once you go fast it's so hard to go back.

 

[Carlius]

34 ultrawide, 120hz + 1440p is where its at.

 

[Yogi]

It's definitely true (at least for me) that once you use a desktop at 144Hz or more, there's no way you will accept 60Hz. Even just for general browsing like using a browser. Not a chance in hell. No exaggeration, 60Hz is dreadful. The higher the refreshrate, the lighter your mouse feels and the more pleasant the experience is. A real treat for the eyes.

I'd love to get an ultrawide but it will take all my desk space and the support isn't ubiquitous. It'll be an extra thing to worry about with each game. I think I'd rather just get a massive monitor. But again, motion clarity or colours that pop. Two monitors is clutter, but I don't want to sacrifice either one. Even 165Hz IPS isn't like TN. It's mushy. Compromises everywhere with current tech :/

 

[aevanhoe]

"why does this forum..."'

you are the one that made a sweeping statement about size being more immersive over high refresh rate. Lol.

Click to shrink...

No, you didn't read or comprehend my post. I made a sweeping statement that for me, personally, size is more immersive than high refresh rate.

 

[Beer Monkey]

If you're PC gaming, you want 144hz, not 4K.

 

[Puggles]

I play way more on my 40" 4k60 monitor than I do my 27" 1440p120. Refresh rate isn't that important to me. I barely notice anything over 60 and don't play competitively.

 

[Lobster Roll]

Framerate / Refresh Rate / Input Lag
Textures
Resolution
Screen Size

In that order.

 

[Pants_Problems]

I have my PC hooked up to a 55" 60hz Samsung w/ HDR, as well as a 240hz HP Omen 1080p (non-HDR). So best of both worlds, honestly.

If I were to choose one, it'd definitely be the high refresh rate, "low resolution" situation. It really is a much better experience.

Running on a 3800x, 1080ti - I can max out most games at 1080p (some with a resolution scale increase) and maintain well over 130fps in most cases, Plague Tale being the most recent example.

 

[Bjones]

Big and 60 FPS for me

 

[TransEuropaExpress]

I'm currently really enjoying replaying Dark Souls on my, for my standards, giant new 55" TV. That's about all I know. I like it big apparently.

 

[gozu]

My dream is a 77" Oled TV @ 120 Hz hooked to my PC and consoles.

High Refresh rate, High res, good for PC and console gaming.

It will replace my 60" Plasma @ 60 Hz which is currently doing the lord's work but is not quite sharp enough for PC text.

Now that's a fucking TV upgrade! Quadruple the res, double the refresh, VRR and HDR.

It's basically like going from a black and white to a color TV. (ok, not really, let's not get carried away..)

 

[dgrdsv]

There are benefits to >60Hz displays for purely console players too. DF have shown them several times already. It boils down to better frame pacing in titles where it's bad by default and possibility to run B/C titles with uncapped modes at full refresh speed.

 

[NoctisLC]

I love the 144fps when I use my monitor but I just cant give up the visual quality my OLED tv brings at 4k60 with HDR.

 

[Duxxy3]

24" 144hz for me please. If Windows had better scaling I'd be fine with 1440p or 4k, but windows is crap at scaling.