If you use a TV for a PC monitor, this question is for you

[Percussionista]

Do you have any issues with having your TV "go to sleep" when your PC tells it to after a period of your defined inactivity? Can it even make the TV "go to sleep"? (I'm not even sure what that would mean for a TV!!) Or are you just stuck with it on all the time, or have to constantly turn it on and off (not my cup of tea).

Do you have any other drawbacks using a TV instead of an actual monitor?

I'm looking at 4K monitors and TVs in the 40" range, only a few now, and waiting for a few more shoes to drop. Such as Seiki's new 40" monitor (about $1000), but waiting for them to upgrade their HDCP/HDMI inputs this summer. Also looking at the new 43" Vizio M-series TV (about $600) which already has combinations of HDMI inputs, some with HDCP 2.2 and some with HDMI 2.0, one of the five inputs does HDCP 2.2/HDMI 2.0 at 60 Hz. Probably not interested in the Philips 40" monitor. Monoprice had suggested to me that they were coming out with more 4K monitors but so far they just have the too-small 28" model.

[knucklehead]

With my last tv - a 42" Vizio it would automatically shut off if there were no signal from the computer. Connection was made via RGB 15 pin 'D' cord. I could prevent that by keeping a source (Sat Box) active in the PIP. My new tv is a 55" LG 3D smart tv but doesn't have PIP but a nag screen pops up if no signal is detected on the HDMI input its currently on. Computer to tv is via HDMI. In about 4-5 minutes if I don't move the mouse to bring back the desktop display it will auto shut off. No big deal IMO - just turn it back on. I looked for a new tv with PIP to no avail. Seems the manufacturers have discontinued that nifty feature. WHY? I liked it.

There are IMO no drawbacks to using tv for a computer monitor - I live alone so I can watch what I want and cruise the internet if I want. I'll likely never use a dedicated  computer monitor again. The old tv did have some burn-in on the screen after 7 years of daily use - probably 6-10 hours per day - more in winter since I often can't get out to golf. You could clearly see where the cards lay in freecell when there was a white background. Not very noticeable otherwise.

[garbulky]

Going to sleep. I have two that I use as PC monitors. They do go to sleep. My new unit simply turns off. My old unit had two modes, turned off and "sleep" when it has an inactive signal. Both were pretty much the same. It will act in all respects like a computer monitor.
However, resolutions to be expected would be 1920X1080 and 1280X720. Anything else like the popular 1920X1200 will act weird and 1280X1024 will be a square with large black bars on either side. So plan on HDTV resolutions, which work very well imo.

For close to a decade I have used HDTV's as monitors. I've used them at near range (desktop) and at living room range. The two applications differ in input capability and size requirements. A forty inch feels really nice up close. However, work in the living room about 6 to 8 feet away and you start to crave more size. I kow that sounds ridiculous, you probably have a 20 something inch unit that feels pretty big. But when you go HDTV, you realize their real strength is large size, especially at a distance. I would reccomend a minimum of 50 inches but honestly you won't be out of sorts wit a 60 inch at a distance.

At near range, 1080p monitors actually offer you a whole lot of useability at 1080p. At living room distance, even a 50 inch monitor makes things feel too small at 1080p. If you have 4k, unlesss you're one of those photoshop people, I suggest springing for some serious size as then 4k is worth it. I find it pointless to squint at my screen especially if the thing is 40 inches big and right next to my face. If youre going for anything less than 50 inch, honestly, I think 4k is completely useless even at near field.

SCALING IS AND WILL BE AN ISSUE. Especially with windows. This will be your very very biggest aggravator. If scaling just "worked" then you don't have to worry, get the biggest 4k, run it at native resolution, adjust scale to match your eyes comfort level.
But....it just doesn't work that way. Web pages look wierd at realy high resolutions. They get annoying when you then shove it down to 720p just to have a comfortable size to work with as they tend to be just slightly higher than the 720 pixel height. If you read anything, this is it.

But....once you get an HDTV, you're not going to go back.
Having said all that, I have a cheap 50 inch HDTV. And even though the picture looks stunningly better than my old westinghouse 37 inch HDTV. Truth be told, the text, color and graphics quality isn't quite as good as my westinghouse. This shouldn't discouragfe you. My 50 inch HDTV was $200. The prices you're looking at, the picture will be STUNNING. Unless you are a pro, I don't think you'll notice the price benefits of a really large computer monitor. Just go with an HDTV. It's the way I would go.
As for HDMI 2.....graphics cards that do HDMI 2 are few and extremely expensive. Last time I checked they were a $1000 and it was an NVidia unit. Apparently now the GTX 960 with HDMI 2 can be had for around $250 which isn't bad.

Also at 4k resolutions, you do need a beefy PC to keep things flicking through smoothly. For instance, just scrolling on a website at higher resolutions can feel "choppy" versus smooth with a lower horse power PC.
On my old quad core Q600, now several generations out of date, at 1080 P resolutions, website scrolling .... ESPECIALLY when zoomed (which was needed for scaling) was somewhat choppy. At 720 p resolutions, it was buttery smooth.

Some thoughts, hopefully they helped.
Other than scaling, my other huge aggravator was wireless input devices. Sitting on a couch, these units are clunky. If it's small, then it basically doesn't work as well as it should. If it's big, input speed is much more familiar, but it becomes unweildly on your lap, or takes up space.
Another thing, it takes a while to find the right wireless keyboard and mouse that work for you. A lot of them have cut off problems anything past say...3 (!!) feet. The only one I found that's cheap to work without flaws or hiccups is this little thing.
www.bestbuy.com/site/logitech-m185-wireless-optical-mouse-gray/1192068.p?id=1219473261318&skuId=1192068&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=1192068&extensionType=pla:g&s_kwcid=PTC!pla!!!88489990519!g!!57045791599&kpid=1192068&k_clickid=e640483d-8777-4897-b51c-da1e40120a19&kpid=1192068&lsft=ref:212,loc:1&ksid=e640483d-8777-4897-b51c-da1e40120a19&ksprof_id=8&ksaffcode=pg5943&ksdevice=c
I still haven't found a reliable cheap wireless keyboard. The ones that are wireless and good tend to be very thin offering finger fatigue.

[sahmen]

I use a couple of Mac minis attached to my two Panasonic plasmas. The "sleep" command on the Mac minis do not affect the plasmas at all. However, the plasmas are programmed to turn themselves off after X-minutes of inactivity, so that takes care of itself. You could also use the screen savers, on the pc or the monitor, if you want the monitor to stay on all the time, even if there is no activity. Personally, I prefer the monitors to shut down when not in use, so I do not bother with any screen savers.

[qdtjni]

I use a Panasonic TX-50AXW804 with my Mac Pro and the only drawback is that it goes to sleep when the computer "turns the display off".
Then it has to be turned on with the remote or you can't kind of automate that by enabling the motion sensor functions.

Obviously, if I set the computer to never turn of the screen, it won't. SO if you're not concerned with power consumption there is no drawback.

BTW, I tried with a 4k 28" ASUS and it is too small for 4k use and if scale a bit to make it more readable, what's the point of 4k then?

[bootman]

The only time you will want a monitor over a normal TV is when you need refresh rates higher than the usual fixed 60 @ 1080p or 30 at 4K.
For some sensitive to flicker, especially at 30Hz a monitor may be a better choice.
But it isn't a cut and dry choice. You will have to see if it bothers you.

Now some displays say 120Hz or 240 but it will not take that as in input vs a computer monitor (which usually tops out at 144 input depending on type of panel for 1080p and 60-120 for 2K models)

For normal PC use 60@1080p is fine.

[garbulky]

Re: Flicker. This is a bit different from flicker from a CRT monitor. For instance 60hz on a CRT is headache inducing. That's because the screen more or less flashes 60 times a second. On an LCD it doesn't flash the display is more or less constant, so the eye strain isn't there. It "refreshes" or changes picture 60 times a second. That's a very big difference. THe only times things like thay MAY become an issue is at 30hz monitors where if you drag a window or page pretty fast you may see screen "tearing" where half the picture is one thing and half is the other. But there's a good chance you may not see it even then. For instance movies are at 24 frames per second. Now in games that's a different issue and you want at least 60hz.

[brand]

Sort of depends how close you sit to the monitor/tv. Like boot mentioned rerfresh rates could be a topic and on top of that if you're into gaming input lag is a big topic especially in multiplayer games (I'd never use a TV for anything multiplayer such as RTS or FPS where milliseconds matter). Also I just find it more pleasing on the eye because I sit fairly close. If you're talking normal tv distance it's a different story.

[qdtjni]

May 24, 2015 12:47:45 GMT -5 bootman said:

The only time you will want a monitor over a normal TV is when you need refresh rates higher than the usual fixed 60 @ 1080p or 30 at 4K.
For some sensitive to flicker, especially at 30Hz a monitor may be a better choice.
But it isn't a cut and dry choice. You will have to see if it bothers you.

My Panny TV does 60Hz at 2160p. i.e. 60 @ 4k.

[qdtjni]

May 24, 2015 12:47:45 GMT -5 bootman said:

For normal PC use 60@1080p is fine.

What's the point of getting a large high resolution screen if you don't use the high resolution?

[ÈlTwo]

May 24, 2015 12:47:45 GMT -5 bootman said:

Now some displays say 120Hz or 240 but it will not take that as in input vs a computer monitor (which usually tops out at 144 input depending on type of panel for 1080p and 60-120 for 2K models)

But they really only do 60Hz, most of the time. Fake Refresh Rates.

[bootman]

May 24, 2015 14:09:05 GMT -5 qdtjni said:

May 24, 2015 12:47:45 GMT -5 bootman said:

For normal PC use 60@1080p is fine.

What's the point of getting a large high resolution screen if you don't use the high resolution?

That was in reference to using a TV as a computer monitor and the built in limitation of 60 input.

[bootman]

May 24, 2015 14:37:39 GMT -5 ÈlTwo said:

May 24, 2015 12:47:45 GMT -5 bootman said:

Now some displays say 120Hz or 240 but it will not take that as in input vs a computer monitor (which usually tops out at 144 input depending on type of panel for 1080p and 60-120 for 2K models)

But they really only do 60Hz, most of the time. Fake Refresh Rates.

I agree. Those 120 and 240 sets are just doubling the input.
They can't take a real input that high from a PC source like a real computer monitor can. (which currently can go as high as 144 with a TN panel)

[Percussionista]

I guess I should have given more information at first ;-)

I currently have an HP 30" monitor (the original LP3065) and it's still excellent. This is a 2560x1600 monitor like all the 30 inchers. There is NO problem with scaling. I just take it at full rez and it's fine on the current PC.

I recently upgraded the GPU from a GTX570 to a GTX970 (both slightly overclocked at the factory). Plenty of firepower. The computer is 4 years old but is running a fast quad core (2nd gen? Sandy Bridge) I7-2600K CPU, so again plenty of firepower.

I want even more desktop and keep the sharpness. For folks with normal HD screens, going to a 4K screen will double the dimensions both horizontally and vertically. Going from my 30" to a 4K screen will give me 50% more width and 33% more height (approximately).

The use is just at my PC, not living room, so distance to the screen is 2 feet-ish. Works just fine for 30". I've completely rejected the 28" 4K models for the reasons suggested; that's even smaller than my current monitor with all those extra pixels squeezed in. Way too small. "Everybody" says 40" is just right to avoid scaling. I can fit 40" on my desk between the Stealth-6's, and even the 43" Vizio I mentioned, which also has a tighter bezel than typical monitors, though I might have to have the screen back another 2 inches.

(For family room home theater use, probably by 2016 holiday season, that's when we'd pop for a large 4K model, no smaller than 65")

I would only want to use the new 4K screen at 60Hz. I've read plenty of posts about drag etc. at 30Hz, even just moving the mouse on the desktop. For gaming, well, there might be a few FPS games I could reasonably run even on a 970 at full resolution. More likely I would set them to be 2560x1440 - but I will try full 4K resolution just for fun ;-) When/if run as a TV, 30Hz should be fine. My main interest is use as a monitor, but will of course be more than a little tempted to try out Netflix 4K - anything I can to really see what it can really do!

I realize the 970 does not unfortunately have HDCP 2.2 so I'm not future-proofed for that, and yes the 960 does darn it ;-) We'll see years down the road. For now, since we're so close with the new standards just appearing I wanted to get what I could.

So... Still not sure about the "sleep" issue because if the effect is to have the TV turn off, it is often a bit slow to turn back on again, which would be very annoying. I currently run with only a 5 minute inactivity wait time to turn off my monitor. I don't want to run the TV on all the time all day long! The ideal situation would be to have a TV with a low-power standby mode that turned on quickly.

[bootman]

May 24, 2015 14:03:17 GMT -5 qdtjni said:

May 24, 2015 12:47:45 GMT -5 bootman said:

The only time you will want a monitor over a normal TV is when you need refresh rates higher than the usual fixed 60 @ 1080p or 30 at 4K.
For some sensitive to flicker, especially at 30Hz a monitor may be a better choice.
But it isn't a cut and dry choice. You will have to see if it bothers you.

My Panny TV does 60Hz at 2160p. i.e. 60 @ 4k.

True, but the cheaper ones used as PC monitor substitutes usually can't. (the Seiki TV is 30Hz @ 4K for example but their monitors can do 60 @4k)
The OP made no mention of a high end Panny as his display choice.

[qdtjni]

May 24, 2015 15:00:28 GMT -5 bootman said:

May 24, 2015 14:03:17 GMT -5 qdtjni said:

My Panny TV does 60Hz at 2160p. i.e. 60 @ 4k.

True, but the cheaper ones used as PC monitor substitutes usually can't.
The OP made no mention of a high end Panny as his display choice.

Nor did you mention your response was limited to his choices, but fair enough.

[qdtjni]

May 24, 2015 14:53:50 GMT -5 bootman said:

May 24, 2015 14:09:05 GMT -5 qdtjni said:

What's the point of getting a large high resolution screen if you don't use the high resolution?

That was in reference to using a TV as a computer monitor and the built in limitation of 60 input.

Even in that context, it doesn't make sense to get a huge screen for computer use at a desk unless it also has higher resolution, all IHMHO of course.

Just as 28" is too small for UHD, a 27 or larger is too large for 1080p,  where 2560x1440 or somewhat larges is good.

[Percussionista]

May 24, 2015 15:03:16 GMT -5 qdtjni said:

May 24, 2015 15:00:28 GMT -5 bootman said:

True, but the cheaper ones used as PC monitor substitutes usually can't.
The OP made no mention of a high end Panny as his display choice.

Nor did you mention your response was limited to his choices, but fair enough.

Yeah, high-end (a.k.a. high price) was not what I was looking for, but it's good to know what is out there. Until Monoprice came out with their 30" monitor models, the 30 inchers were all pretty steep - I'd call those high-end. But it seems newer stuff is bucking the trend so I'm hoping for good quality at lower prices. The 4k 40" Seiki and Philips models though are about $1000 so not exactly cheap. TVs seem to be cheaper for the same real-estate, hence my interest (and you can watch TV ;-))

Current HP model monitor for a 30" 2560x1600 is still about $1500! Monoprice less than half of that. Big question is am I shooting myself in the foot in terms of quality and longevity by going for these others. Answer is - I have no idea ;-) And $1000 for the Seiki is not chump change either!

[qdtjni]

For 4k as a computer screen I would not chose a smaller than 40" and make sure it can do 60 Hz at full res with your computer, i.e. 2160p.
Think the Philips Philips BDM4065UC is a very good choice since it has both DP 1.2 and HDMI and it costs less than 630 USD here.

[Percussionista]

May 24, 2015 15:24:53 GMT -5 qdtjni said:

For 4k as a computer screen I would not chose a smaller than 40" and make sure it can do 60 Hz at full res with your computer, i.e. 2160p.
Think the Philips Philips BDM4065UC is a very good choice since it has both DP 1.2 and HDMI and it costs less than 630 USD here.

60 Hz @ 2160p absolutely a must! The Philips can do that with the DP 1.2 port and a Philips driver install, but I was somewhat concerned about the high color temp. Not sure how that really plays out. I definitely have not seen it priced anywhere near $630; only in the $900 range.

The Seiki Pro SM40UNP is running just under $1000 from Amazon, varies, but always over $900. This model is still HDMI 1.4/HDCP 2.0, but they've promised an updated model "this summer" with the new specs. Current model does 60 Hz @ 2160p via its DP 1.2 port.

Both the Seiki and Philips use VA panels, still not sure how I will like those (haven't gone looking to see any). The 30" monitors, including mine, are all IPS. These are both considerably more expensive than the Vizio M TV which has come out at $600. I have no experience with any of these brands.