11 ms·

I apologize if this is an incredibly stupid question, but why do these monitors cost so much? As I understand it, you can buy a good 4k TV for considerably less

I apologize if this is an incredibly stupid question, but why do these monitors cost so much? As I understand it, you can buy a good 4k TV for considerably less, so what features of this monitor make it a better deal?

zyb09 9y ago
Probably a lot less volume being sold on ultra wide monitor panels. Therefore higher price.
jrimbault 9y ago
Related musing: why is it seemingly easier to make very high resolution small screen (phones) than large screens of the same resolution ? Instinctevly I would think smaller leds are harder to make, but it doesn't seem it's the case ?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- easytiger 9y ago
  There is a greater failure rate the larger you make apanel. a great many are discarded from production lines. If the screen is smaller then it is less likely to incur error. Also that cost is hidden in a phone, i'm not sure what the value of screen components would be.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    A large defective panel can be cut down into smaller panels most of which will have no defects. You can sell most of your faulty large panels as small panels, but there is no extra source of large panels.
    - easytiger 9y ago
      Well the point stands that statistically its much easier to make a smaller panel than a larger panel. A larger panel being n times smaller ones.
- amptorn 9y ago
  I'm going to guess the square law? This monitor has about 75 times the screen area of a typical phone.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    Right, and a Phone could spend $50 to build that screen on a $700 device (not that they do). Just a raw 75 * $50 is near $4000, which would explain a high price.
    - ricardobeat 9y ago
      The parent's point is that making a larger screen with _the same pixel count_ should be much cheaper, not one with 75x the resolution.
      - amptorn 9y ago
        I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      - brianwawok 9y ago
        That is if it is the pixels per unit that lead to cost, vs the size of the display itself. Obviously it is harder to make a 1 inch x 1 inch display with 1 million pixels vs 1000. But maybe the difference from 600ppi to 200ppi is not enough to matter...
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  The probability of manufacturing a bad pixel is some constant plus a function of the area of that pixel, and not the number of neighbours it has.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
It's designed for graphic design and other display-critical tasks, so it is calibrated to 99% sRGB color space. What it looks like on this monitor will be what it should look like in print and on the best of every other display. Plus, it's the UltraSharp top-end model, so all the mechanical construction will be top notch. TVs, on the other hand, are designed to show the most oversaturated, "vibrant" colors on the demo loop on the show-room wall. And mechanically, they're designed to hang on the wall and never be touched. Plus it's curved.
- mrkrabo 9y ago
  I have an UltraSharp and it's fucking rubbish. Half of the screen has a yellow tint, and it has dark corners. Obviously support says it's "within spec".
  - kutkloon7 9y ago
    Not sure why this is getting downvoted... Seems relevant information to me.
    - justin66 9y ago
      He doesn't mention the model number, plus it's a new account, so there's little trust that what he's saying is true. (I didn't downvote)
- kuschku 9y ago
  > so it is calibrated to 99% sRGB color space. What it looks like on this monitor will be what it should look like in print and on the best of every other display. That’s completely useless for graphic design. sRGB is defined as the lowest common denominator of CRTs on the market in the early 90s. Actual monitors for graphic design purposes, every TV released in 2017, and most new gaming monitors use instead AdobeRGB or DCI-P3 colorspace or even Rec.2020, which is what is also used in cinemas. For comparison, this is 100% sRGB (what you claimed is "for graphic design" vs. 100% Rec.2020 "what most new TVs and gaming monitors support"): https://dotcolordotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rec2020-vs-rec709-001.png https://dotcolordotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rec2020-v...
melling 9y ago
I Googled a good answer for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xsaaw/eli5_why_are_computer_monitors_so_much_more/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xsaaw/e...
muzani 9y ago
Monitors are designed to be viewed at close range, from multiple near angles. TVs are designed to be viewed several meters away, at roughly the same angle. TVs play content of the same frame rate, so there's no reason for them to be any more precise. Monitors can go at very high frame rate as the content can be very fast paced, especially gaming monitors. Freesync/gsync also integrates with the graphics card to reduce lag. This is the most expensive part of these monitors.
- the8472 9y ago
  This is not a gaming monitor, it only does 60Hz. And it does not have freesync. The article mentions both facts.
  - muzani 9y ago
    Oh I skimmed it to the stats. It was showing a competitor monitor's stats. Still the same principle.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 9y ago
Internet is full of opinions. A recent positive: https://www.techspot.com/article/1439-using-4k-tv-as-desktop-pc-monitor/ https://www.techspot.com/article/1439-using-4k-tv-as-desktop... A negative from 2014: http://www.itworld.com/article/2832687/consumerization/don-t-buy-the-hype-on-using-a-4k-tv-as-a-computer-monitor.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2832687/consumerization/don-t... and some discussion: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/2866881-4k-tv-pc-monitor.html#/topics/2866881 http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/28... The main headache seems to be blurry fonts which probably mean a lack of 4:4:4 chroma support or the inability to enable it.
thinkloop 9y ago
It's like how megapixels are a bad measure of camera quality. This is a pro monitor with accurate color reproduction, low fading on the edges, minimal dead pixels, etc.
sudosushi 9y ago
Several reasons: - TV's are generally low framerate, as much as they'd like to claim 240FPS, it's mostly all 30FPS, with software interpolation to increase the frames. - Bulk. TV's are solid in higher numbers, justifying the lower price - Distance from face. Your 60" TV can be two smaller panels "glued" together. Not noticeable from watching distance, but having a monitor so close to your face, you're more likely to notice the millisecond tearing.
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  "- TV's are generally low framerate, as much as they'd like to claim 240FPS, it's mostly all 30FPS, with software interpolation to increase the frames." That makes absolutely no sense. If the panel is incapable of 240 refreshes per second, how does software interpolation "increase the frames"? You are confusing content and panel.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kubuxu 9y ago
    5min video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxvu7qf6rDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxvu7qf6rDw Mainly it is that for more than 60fps you need dual-link DVI, display port or HDMI 2.0 and you won't find many TVs with either of those. So even though the screen can do more than 60fps the input and processor can't take it.
    - LeoNatan25 9y ago
      That’s not what was said in the comment. Obviously, the point of a interpolation is to take a signal with little samples and increase those. What the comment said was that the hardware (panel) was not capable, so the software somehow was able to do it. It makes no sense.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        > What the comment said was that the hardware (panel) was not capable The word 'panel' is not in that part of the comment. The hardware is incapable of getting high fps signals through most of the pipeline.
vesak 9y ago
Also, incidentally, I'd happily pay a bit of premium for a TV / Monitor that has good image quality but no other features. Perhaps not 2x as much, but 20% might be doable.
dhd415 9y ago
I've been using a Samsung 40" 4k TV as my main monitor for development work for about 8 months and it's been great for me. A couple caveats -- Because I don't game or do graphics work, I don't know or care about color reproduction. I made sure to get a TV, graphics card, and cable that supported 4k@60hz with 4:4:4 chroma so the text is perfectly sharp and the refresh is not obtrusive. It's not hard to find a Samsung TV around $350 that supports that, but as far as I could tell, I had to go up to a GTX1050 graphics card to get that. I sit between 24 and 28" away from the monitor so the text is readable to me at full resolution. At that distance, I do have to turn my head to comfortably read text in the corners of the TV, especially the upper corners. In practice, that means I keep monitoring-type applications such as CPU charts, Datadog graphs, etc., in one of those corners for quick reference. While I still have two 1920x1080 monitors on either side of the TV, it's quite nice to be able to open up on my main monitor a huge IDE window and, when necessary, put 3-4 normal-sized windows next to each other for comparison work.
- ianai 9y ago
  Does 60 hz keep windows from lagging when moved?
  - dhd415 9y ago
    I detect no lag when moving windows around. It might not (or might -- I simply don't know) be good enough for gamers, but it's definitely smooth enough for development, document, or web browsing (aka productivity) tasks.
    - LiquidFlux 9y ago
      144Hz monitors do produce a very noticeable difference for gaming if you can rival the refresh rate with in-game FPS, outside of gaming I've only found it noticeable when moving windows about. For productivity I'd go for the 40" 2160p over a lower resolution higher refresh panel.
  - slantyyz 9y ago
    You might be thinking of the issue early adopters had with TVs that only did 4K/30 over HDMI. At 60Hz, it's like any other computer monitor.
danmaz74 9y ago
I think that the 24:10 aspect ratio alone will cause higher prices because of much lower economies of scale for the panel...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
sampl 9y ago
The pricing is so odd. For $300 more, you can get a monitor with _much_ better resolution (5120x2880), though in a smaller screen size. It's called an iMac. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch
- blattimwind 9y ago
  5K 27" displays are much less than this.
  - LeoNatan25 9y ago
    5K 27” with wide color gamut and good calibration? Please post links here.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      For photo / graphics work, wide gamut and calibration are important. For text editing, less so. High DPI is important for me, though.
    - irq 9y ago
      LG 5K 27" display. 100% coverage of P3 gamut. $1299. https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-display?fnode=4c https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-dis...
      - LeoNatan25 9y ago
        This is a good display, and price has gone down. But anyway to connect it to a Windows 10 / nVidia PC and get the full 5K resolution? No GPU that I’m familiar with has support for USB-C.
        irq 9y ago
        MSI NVIDIA GTX1080Ti GPU with USB-C: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57725/msi-first-graphics-card-usb-type-port/index.html http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57725/msi-first-graphics-card-...
olegkikin 9y ago
And it double-sucks, because here in Italy we have to pay "TV tax", even if you don't have the TV service hooked up. Modern LCD/OLED TVs are perfectly fine for most tasks, except maybe high-end FPS gaming. The colors are good, the refresh rates are decent.
- J_cst 9y ago
  That's an ownership tax on tv's as there's an ownership tax on cars. The fact that the proceedings of the Tv ownership tax pay for the public (national) tv service is just a side factor. As very few people were actually paying it, the Tv ownership tax has been embedded on the electricity bill. _Italians, good people_
- walterstucco 9y ago
  E basta co sta storia del canone! È una tassa, pagatela e smettetela di lamentarvi.
  - J_cst 9y ago
    I was just saying that above, it's an ownership tax. A lot more people are paying it as it's now embedded on the electricity bill, so it's useless to recommend to pay it as it's now been basically enforced. I believe you should comment in english if you wish to be understood.
terminalcommand 9y ago
I cannot speak for 4K TVs, but as I was making a research for my own purchase I found the following differences between monitors and TVs. TVs are said to be configured to display the best-looking colors, monitors try to stay true to the real color. TVs have an immensely higher refresh rate, 50hz/60hz usually suffice for a TV. But on monitors we speak of milliseconds. The refresh rate makes a lot of difference, if you intend to game on your computer/monitor. An e-sport professional Redittor claims he had improved his playing performance multiple-folds after switching to a monitor instead of TV. (https://www.reddit.com/r/FIFA/comments/5whb9v/did_the_change_from_tv_to_monitor_here_are_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FIFA/comments/5whb9v/did_the_change...) Other than these differences and the occasional overscan/underscan problems on older televisions, I personally see no reason to prefer a Monitor over a TV, if there is huge price difference. If the price difference is minor, I'd opt for a monitor.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jacoblambda 9y ago
  Refresh rate and response time are different. Refresh rate is how often a new frame is displayed, i.e. 50/60/144Hz. Response time is the amount of time it takes for the display to process a frame and display it, i.e. 1/2/4/16ms.
  - terminalcommand 9y ago
    I stand corrected. >>Over a decade has passed since the LCD monitor unceremoniously ousted the boxy CRT monitor into obsolescence, but with that ousting came a small problem: CRT monitors redrew every frame from scratch, and this was baked into the fundamentals of how PCs sent information to the screen. Monitors redrew the screen with a refresh rate of 100 Hz, (100 times a second), and they were silky smooth. >>LCD monitors don’t have this problem, because the pixels don’t need to be refreshed. Instead, they update individual pixels with new colors, and each of those updates takes a certain amount of time depending on what the change is. The response time refers to how long this change takes. LCDs started with a 60-Hz refresh rate but a response time of about 15 milliseconds (ms). For more information on the subject: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/refresh-rates-vs-response-times,news-24345.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/refresh-rates-vs-response-times...
hocuspocus 9y ago
High-end monitors are niche products. 40" TVs aren't. HDMI 2.0 is a pain compared to DP, other than that, there's almost no reason not to buy a TV if you just care about office use. I've been using a Samsung UHD TV for almost two years.
prodmerc 9y ago
Honestly, it just looks like price gouging. You can get a 40 inch LG IPS 4K TV for half the price. And this Dell isn't even 10 bit IPS, which is what monitors for professional graphics use, it's the standard 8bit IPS, very likely made by LG. It's curved though.
rwallace 9y ago
I know someone who uses a 1080p TV as a monitor for his gaming PC. The picture quality is poor; it's too blurry to be tolerable for work. That's okay in this particular case, since he uses a different PC for work, but that one needs a proper monitor. Granted that's 1080p, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing is true of 4k.

zyb09 9y ago

Probably a lot less volume being sold on ultra wide monitor panels. Therefore higher price.

jrimbault 9y ago

Related musing: why is it seemingly easier to make very high resolution small screen (phones) than large screens of the same resolution ? Instinctevly I would think smaller leds are harder to make, but it doesn't seem it's the case ?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
easytiger 9y ago
There is a greater failure rate the larger you make apanel. a great many are discarded from production lines. If the screen is smaller then it is less likely to incur error. Also that cost is hidden in a phone, i'm not sure what the value of screen components would be.
- nine_k 9y ago
  A large defective panel can be cut down into smaller panels most of which will have no defects. You can sell most of your faulty large panels as small panels, but there is no extra source of large panels.
  - easytiger 9y ago
    Well the point stands that statistically its much easier to make a smaller panel than a larger panel. A larger panel being n times smaller ones.
amptorn 9y ago
I'm going to guess the square law? This monitor has about 75 times the screen area of a typical phone.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Right, and a Phone could spend $50 to build that screen on a $700 device (not that they do). Just a raw 75 * $50 is near $4000, which would explain a high price.
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    The parent's point is that making a larger screen with _the same pixel count_ should be much cheaper, not one with 75x the resolution.
    - amptorn 9y ago
      I could be wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - brianwawok 9y ago
      That is if it is the pixels per unit that lead to cost, vs the size of the display itself. Obviously it is harder to make a 1 inch x 1 inch display with 1 million pixels vs 1000. But maybe the difference from 600ppi to 200ppi is not enough to matter...
robotresearcher 9y ago
The probability of manufacturing a bad pixel is some constant plus a function of the area of that pixel, and not the number of neighbours it has.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

It's designed for graphic design and other display-critical tasks, so it is calibrated to 99% sRGB color space. What it looks like on this monitor will be what it should look like in print and on the best of every other display. Plus, it's the UltraSharp top-end model, so all the mechanical construction will be top notch. TVs, on the other hand, are designed to show the most oversaturated, "vibrant" colors on the demo loop on the show-room wall. And mechanically, they're designed to hang on the wall and never be touched. Plus it's curved.

mrkrabo 9y ago
I have an UltraSharp and it's fucking rubbish. Half of the screen has a yellow tint, and it has dark corners. Obviously support says it's "within spec".
- kutkloon7 9y ago
  Not sure why this is getting downvoted... Seems relevant information to me.
  - justin66 9y ago
    He doesn't mention the model number, plus it's a new account, so there's little trust that what he's saying is true. (I didn't downvote)
kuschku 9y ago
> so it is calibrated to 99% sRGB color space. What it looks like on this monitor will be what it should look like in print and on the best of every other display. That’s completely useless for graphic design. sRGB is defined as the lowest common denominator of CRTs on the market in the early 90s. Actual monitors for graphic design purposes, every TV released in 2017, and most new gaming monitors use instead AdobeRGB or DCI-P3 colorspace or even Rec.2020, which is what is also used in cinemas. For comparison, this is 100% sRGB (what you claimed is "for graphic design" vs. 100% Rec.2020 "what most new TVs and gaming monitors support"): https://dotcolordotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rec2020-vs-rec709-001.png https://dotcolordotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rec2020-v...

melling 9y ago

I Googled a good answer for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xsaaw/eli5_why_are_computer_monitors_so_much_more/ https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xsaaw/e...

muzani 9y ago

Monitors are designed to be viewed at close range, from multiple near angles. TVs are designed to be viewed several meters away, at roughly the same angle. TVs play content of the same frame rate, so there's no reason for them to be any more precise. Monitors can go at very high frame rate as the content can be very fast paced, especially gaming monitors. Freesync/gsync also integrates with the graphics card to reduce lag. This is the most expensive part of these monitors.

the8472 9y ago
This is not a gaming monitor, it only does 60Hz. And it does not have freesync. The article mentions both facts.
- muzani 9y ago
  Oh I skimmed it to the stats. It was showing a competitor monitor's stats. Still the same principle.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fsloth 9y ago

Internet is full of opinions. A recent positive: https://www.techspot.com/article/1439-using-4k-tv-as-desktop-pc-monitor/ https://www.techspot.com/article/1439-using-4k-tv-as-desktop... A negative from 2014: http://www.itworld.com/article/2832687/consumerization/don-t-buy-the-hype-on-using-a-4k-tv-as-a-computer-monitor.html http://www.itworld.com/article/2832687/consumerization/don-t... and some discussion: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/2866881-4k-tv-pc-monitor.html#/topics/2866881 http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/28... The main headache seems to be blurry fonts which probably mean a lack of 4:4:4 chroma support or the inability to enable it.

thinkloop 9y ago

It's like how megapixels are a bad measure of camera quality. This is a pro monitor with accurate color reproduction, low fading on the edges, minimal dead pixels, etc.

sudosushi 9y ago

Several reasons: - TV's are generally low framerate, as much as they'd like to claim 240FPS, it's mostly all 30FPS, with software interpolation to increase the frames. - Bulk. TV's are solid in higher numbers, justifying the lower price - Distance from face. Your 60" TV can be two smaller panels "glued" together. Not noticeable from watching distance, but having a monitor so close to your face, you're more likely to notice the millisecond tearing.

LeoNatan25 9y ago
"- TV's are generally low framerate, as much as they'd like to claim 240FPS, it's mostly all 30FPS, with software interpolation to increase the frames." That makes absolutely no sense. If the panel is incapable of 240 refreshes per second, how does software interpolation "increase the frames"? You are confusing content and panel.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Kubuxu 9y ago
  5min video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxvu7qf6rDw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxvu7qf6rDw Mainly it is that for more than 60fps you need dual-link DVI, display port or HDMI 2.0 and you won't find many TVs with either of those. So even though the screen can do more than 60fps the input and processor can't take it.
  - LeoNatan25 9y ago
    That’s not what was said in the comment. Obviously, the point of a interpolation is to take a signal with little samples and increase those. What the comment said was that the hardware (panel) was not capable, so the software somehow was able to do it. It makes no sense.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      > What the comment said was that the hardware (panel) was not capable The word 'panel' is not in that part of the comment. The hardware is incapable of getting high fps signals through most of the pipeline.

vesak 9y ago

Also, incidentally, I'd happily pay a bit of premium for a TV / Monitor that has good image quality but no other features. Perhaps not 2x as much, but 20% might be doable.

dhd415 9y ago

I've been using a Samsung 40" 4k TV as my main monitor for development work for about 8 months and it's been great for me. A couple caveats -- Because I don't game or do graphics work, I don't know or care about color reproduction. I made sure to get a TV, graphics card, and cable that supported 4k@60hz with 4:4:4 chroma so the text is perfectly sharp and the refresh is not obtrusive. It's not hard to find a Samsung TV around $350 that supports that, but as far as I could tell, I had to go up to a GTX1050 graphics card to get that. I sit between 24 and 28" away from the monitor so the text is readable to me at full resolution. At that distance, I do have to turn my head to comfortably read text in the corners of the TV, especially the upper corners. In practice, that means I keep monitoring-type applications such as CPU charts, Datadog graphs, etc., in one of those corners for quick reference. While I still have two 1920x1080 monitors on either side of the TV, it's quite nice to be able to open up on my main monitor a huge IDE window and, when necessary, put 3-4 normal-sized windows next to each other for comparison work.

ianai 9y ago
Does 60 hz keep windows from lagging when moved?
- dhd415 9y ago
  I detect no lag when moving windows around. It might not (or might -- I simply don't know) be good enough for gamers, but it's definitely smooth enough for development, document, or web browsing (aka productivity) tasks.
  - LiquidFlux 9y ago
    144Hz monitors do produce a very noticeable difference for gaming if you can rival the refresh rate with in-game FPS, outside of gaming I've only found it noticeable when moving windows about. For productivity I'd go for the 40" 2160p over a lower resolution higher refresh panel.
- slantyyz 9y ago
  You might be thinking of the issue early adopters had with TVs that only did 4K/30 over HDMI. At 60Hz, it's like any other computer monitor.

danmaz74 9y ago

I think that the 24:10 aspect ratio alone will cause higher prices because of much lower economies of scale for the panel...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

sampl 9y ago

The pricing is so odd. For $300 more, you can get a monitor with _much_ better resolution (5120x2880), though in a smaller screen size. It's called an iMac. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch

blattimwind 9y ago
5K 27" displays are much less than this.
- LeoNatan25 9y ago
  5K 27” with wide color gamut and good calibration? Please post links here.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    For photo / graphics work, wide gamut and calibration are important. For text editing, less so. High DPI is important for me, though.
  - irq 9y ago
    LG 5K 27" display. 100% coverage of P3 gamut. $1299. https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-display?fnode=4c https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62/lg-ultrafine-5k-dis...
    - LeoNatan25 9y ago
      This is a good display, and price has gone down. But anyway to connect it to a Windows 10 / nVidia PC and get the full 5K resolution? No GPU that I’m familiar with has support for USB-C.
      - irq 9y ago
        MSI NVIDIA GTX1080Ti GPU with USB-C: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57725/msi-first-graphics-card-usb-type-port/index.html http://www.tweaktown.com/news/57725/msi-first-graphics-card-...

olegkikin 9y ago

And it double-sucks, because here in Italy we have to pay "TV tax", even if you don't have the TV service hooked up. Modern LCD/OLED TVs are perfectly fine for most tasks, except maybe high-end FPS gaming. The colors are good, the refresh rates are decent.

J_cst 9y ago
That's an ownership tax on tv's as there's an ownership tax on cars. The fact that the proceedings of the Tv ownership tax pay for the public (national) tv service is just a side factor. As very few people were actually paying it, the Tv ownership tax has been embedded on the electricity bill. _Italians, good people_
walterstucco 9y ago
E basta co sta storia del canone! È una tassa, pagatela e smettetela di lamentarvi.
- J_cst 9y ago
  I was just saying that above, it's an ownership tax. A lot more people are paying it as it's now embedded on the electricity bill, so it's useless to recommend to pay it as it's now been basically enforced. I believe you should comment in english if you wish to be understood.

terminalcommand 9y ago

I cannot speak for 4K TVs, but as I was making a research for my own purchase I found the following differences between monitors and TVs. TVs are said to be configured to display the best-looking colors, monitors try to stay true to the real color. TVs have an immensely higher refresh rate, 50hz/60hz usually suffice for a TV. But on monitors we speak of milliseconds. The refresh rate makes a lot of difference, if you intend to game on your computer/monitor. An e-sport professional Redittor claims he had improved his playing performance multiple-folds after switching to a monitor instead of TV. (https://www.reddit.com/r/FIFA/comments/5whb9v/did_the_change_from_tv_to_monitor_here_are_my/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FIFA/comments/5whb9v/did_the_change...) Other than these differences and the occasional overscan/underscan problems on older televisions, I personally see no reason to prefer a Monitor over a TV, if there is huge price difference. If the price difference is minor, I'd opt for a monitor.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jacoblambda 9y ago
Refresh rate and response time are different. Refresh rate is how often a new frame is displayed, i.e. 50/60/144Hz. Response time is the amount of time it takes for the display to process a frame and display it, i.e. 1/2/4/16ms.
- terminalcommand 9y ago
  I stand corrected. >>Over a decade has passed since the LCD monitor unceremoniously ousted the boxy CRT monitor into obsolescence, but with that ousting came a small problem: CRT monitors redrew every frame from scratch, and this was baked into the fundamentals of how PCs sent information to the screen. Monitors redrew the screen with a refresh rate of 100 Hz, (100 times a second), and they were silky smooth. >>LCD monitors don’t have this problem, because the pixels don’t need to be refreshed. Instead, they update individual pixels with new colors, and each of those updates takes a certain amount of time depending on what the change is. The response time refers to how long this change takes. LCDs started with a 60-Hz refresh rate but a response time of about 15 milliseconds (ms). For more information on the subject: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/refresh-rates-vs-response-times,news-24345.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/refresh-rates-vs-response-times...

hocuspocus 9y ago

High-end monitors are niche products. 40" TVs aren't. HDMI 2.0 is a pain compared to DP, other than that, there's almost no reason not to buy a TV if you just care about office use. I've been using a Samsung UHD TV for almost two years.

prodmerc 9y ago

Honestly, it just looks like price gouging. You can get a 40 inch LG IPS 4K TV for half the price. And this Dell isn't even 10 bit IPS, which is what monitors for professional graphics use, it's the standard 8bit IPS, very likely made by LG. It's curved though.

rwallace 9y ago

I know someone who uses a 1080p TV as a monitor for his gaming PC. The picture quality is poor; it's too blurry to be tolerable for work. That's okay in this particular case, since he uses a different PC for work, but that one needs a proper monitor. Granted that's 1080p, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing is true of 4k.