Widescreen Gaming Forum

I used to play games on a Benq 24 inch gaming monitor, then I played on a 32 inch LED tv, I liked it a lot more. Now I play on a Sony W800B 50 inch screen for PC/Console gaming and I like it much more than playing on a 32 inch, it has low Input lag for a TV, 24ms on game mode which is good considering most gaming monitors have 10ms input lag and anything under 25ms is best for gaming in my opinion.

My issue is, some televisions have native support for 1080p at 120hz like Vizio M and P Series and many TV's have the capability to be overclocked to 120hz. Gaming monitors usually have more hz, 144, even though that may not make a noticeable difference, they have free sync/gsync technology, something HDTV's suited for gaming don't have.

I really enjoy playing on a big screen more, I can't find any news of a 45 inch ultra wide monitor and not even any on a 40 inch, I prefer a screen that is at least 45 inches or bigger. Does anyone know of anything in development? For any Gaming monitor , ultrawide or not , that is at least 45 inches?

Short Answer
Unlikely

Long Answer
The answer to your question is really dependent on the difference between televisions and monitors of which there are several.

Pixel Density
Monitors are smaller with a higher pixel density to look good when viewed from two feet. The larger your screen without a corresponding increase in resolution the larger the distance between pixels to the point that it becomes noticeable to the naked eye. If you walk up to a 40 inch 1080p television you can see the pixels that comprise the image. This is normally no problem since we don't usually walk up to our televisions and inspect them but we do look closely at our monitors and low pixel density does not look great.

Refresh Rate
You mention 120 hz televisions and unfortunately that is a marketing lie. Televisions that claim 120 hz like the Vizio M series that you mentioned actually run at 60 hz and try to insert estimated frames in between. I've heard it works for sports broadcasts but certainly not for gaming. The truth is there aren't really televisions over 60 hz.

Input Lag
You mentioned 24 ms isn't bad for a television and that's true. But high end gaming monitors keep the input lag under 5 Ms. Which according to what you're playing makes a big difference.

For these reasons PC monitors don't get much bigger than 30 inches. Maybe QHD and 4K resolutions will produce monitors with better pixel density and people will buy bigger monitors. Maybe OLED monitors will start rolling out and solve our monitor latency issues forever. But don't expect monitors to get any bigger in the near future.

You are wrong about TV Refresh rate and you are wrong about Vizio, HDTV's , many are capable of being overclocked to 120hz but I don't think mine is, I already looked into it.

http://www.blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vizio/p-series

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vizio/m-series-2015

I am forever living in regret, I should have got the VIzio, at the time I did not because the TV had serious issues but firmware updates have fixed all that.

I get screen tearing in my games, it could be my monitor though, I am gonna test it on my secondary 32 inch to see if i notice it with vsync off. I only notice it the most in star trek online moving my camera around really fast, other games I can see it sometimes but it isn't a huge issue, just a moderate issue in star trek online.

PC games I play are Star Trek Online and Planetside 2, the main ones I play now. Obviously an ultra wide gaming monitor 144hz and low input lag, FPS games benefit the most from this. Maybe I could get a Ultra wide for 3rd person/1st person shooters like The Division, Planetside 2 and Warhammer 40k:Eternal Crusade and possibly any other fps or MMO I will play. Basically I will use the Ultra wide for MMO's and 3rd person/1st person multiplayer games.

I will use my main screen for single player games, console games, computer and Star Trek Online.

The thing is, if I get a new better TV, like one of those Vizios or the coming R-Series.

https://www.magnoliaav.com/products/tv-video/flat-panel-tvs/vizio-rs65b2 If this TV ever hits retailers.

It will for sure do 120hz on at least 1080p but you can increase that while still on 120hz buy using above 1080p resolutions on Nvidia DSR or AMD's equivalent.

Basically the only draw back is no FreeSync/GSync but the only game I mostly notice it in is star trek online so it isn't a big deal, even in STO I only really notice it by panning my camera view moderately fast or really fast, also depends where I am in the game.

The R will have at least 15ms in game mode, only 10 mor ms than the top 5ms gaming monitors, I don't think it is really noticeable, especially at a small difference like that.

I can also easily do 21:9 on a Native 16:9 screen and it looks exactly like it would on a 21:9 monitor with no bars using a custom resolution. Due to my preference for playing on bigger screens, I think I should just wait and see if the Vizio R ever hits retailers and not just requesting to buy them at Design centers.

There is one.
A few weeks ago I read a news about new monitors.
Something way wider than 21:9 on a 40" or 49" basis. Especially for Gaming not TV.
Sadly I can't remember the name of it.
It's only an announcement now, no hard facts except ultrawide aspect ratio and size.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archiv ... panels_jan

An apparent 49" 32:9. crazy.

I hope most games will be able to support at 32:9 aspect ratio, that is insane, the wider field of view will be a great benefit in 1st person/3d person shooters and certain MMORPG's/ any type of MMO game in huge world pvp situations.

They better have low input lag to, 25ms or below at least. The best gaming monitors are 5ms-10ms input lag.

http://www.displaylag.com/testing-method/

32:9 compatibility should be fairly similar with some differences. This can be predicted based on existing aspect ratio behaviour, particularly narrower multi-monitor setups. PLP and 3x 4:3 have aspect ratios close to 32:9, and of course anyone using 2x 16:9 for gaming already has a 32:9 aspect ratio.

Some games that work perfectly with ultra-widescreen will have issues with 32:9 due to the wider default FOV, e.g. FarSky has visual distortion on the sides (regular ultra-widescreen is just narrow enough to miss this).

Fixes that require swapping in files patched with a specific aspect ratio would need to be recalculated or remade for 32:9. Flawless Widescreen and Widescreen Fixer calculate adjustments automatically, so many of the games those tools cover should work as expected.

Here is Farsky, running on setup aspect 3.259, which is ratio 88:27 (which is 21:6.44 or 16:4.91 or 29.33:9. Bit narrower & taller than 32:9 )

(although I did spread it borderless not fullscreen, maybe makes a differences with LLL's side anomally, don't know)

The 49" 32:9 is my dream monitor. But likely won't buy it:
- VR trumps it for my pocket.
- If you already have a setup you like, 32:9 would have limited payoff.