Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I just read this blog post by Jeff Blankerburg and I thought his point was valid. So I am taking the liberty to post his question here in the community of SuperUsers!

enter image description here

So, I decided to do a little research, and below are my results. I am comparing a 32” Vizio 1080p HDTV with Dell’s top-of-the-line 30” UltraSharp monitor. My question for you, dear reader, is why would I get the monitor over the television? (Please do read through the blog.)

Can the experts here answer this question please?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Linker3000, Kez, Nifle, techie007, grawity Jun 6 '11 at 20:58

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
24" screens are around 90-95 DPI, 30" screens are 100 DPI; the difference is barely perceptible. He doesn't understand the specs, e.g. the dynamic contrast. He doesn't acknowledge non-gaming professionals with a need for high-quality screens (Visual Studio? TweetDeck? Really?), e.g. graphics artists. It feels like a poorly thought out rant without any substance. –  Daniel Beck Jun 6 '11 at 20:35
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 17 down vote accepted

A 32 inch 1080p television will have a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels (that's what the 1080 refers to).

A 30 inch monitor (like this one from Dell has a vertical resolution of 1600 pixels.

That's over 50% more vertically, and 100% more when you take into account the increase in the horizontal resolution. While it might not explain the whole difference it probably goes a long way towards it. A better comparison would be between the TV and a monitor of a similar resolution but smaller size.

There are probably other differences in the electronics and connectors between the two.

However, if the 32" screen works for you then go for it.


There's also the (cynical) thought that if the companies thought they could charge a higher price for the TV they would. If everyone bought the TV rather than the monitor then perhaps the price of monitors would come down ;)

share|improve this answer
    
I think the TV is a good deal. Save money on TV tuners! :) –  Mayank Jun 6 '11 at 14:36
    
It's almost exactly twice the amount of pixels in 2560x1600 compared to 1920x1080. –  Daniel Beck Jun 6 '11 at 15:02
1  
@Daniel - I was referring the vertical resolution only, but that's a good point. –  ChrisF Jun 6 '11 at 15:09
add comment

As ChrisF stated a the resolution of the panels is quite different, 1080p = 1920x1080 pixels while the Dell 3007WFP = 2560*1600, and so I'm not surprised at a price difference there. There is double the amount of pixels in the Dell monitor (4,096,000 vs 2,073,600 pixels) and that means a much higher quality production line to produce it.

Another thing that could contribute to the added cost is that as people tend to sit a lot closer to computer screens than they do TVs the monitor panel a higher quality panel is necessary as any and all defects will be much more noticable.

Quite often you are paying for the quality of the panel and I would expect a computer monitor to have less defective pixels. A cheap television may be able to get away with more dead pixels around the border as these are areas that are viewed less while watching films while the whole screen is important when playing a game and dead pixels can cause annoyance or distraction, especially when combined with the closer proximity of the user.

share|improve this answer
    
4,096,000 actually. –  Daniel Beck Jun 6 '11 at 15:03
    
@DanielBeck So it is, where the heck did I get that number from? :S –  Mokubai Jun 6 '11 at 15:04
    
Good point about the dead pixels. –  ChrisF Jun 6 '11 at 15:11
1  
2650x1600. –  Daniel Beck Jun 6 '11 at 15:12
    
+1 for dead pixels. A stray dead black pixel is also known as a 'stray decimal point' to Excel. Monitor manufacturers need to be much stricter about quality control. –  Rich Homolka Jun 6 '11 at 18:18
add comment

I disagree we are being ripped off when you consider raw price on like for like devices and remember, you can always use a TV as a computer monitor (With the exception of i resolutions (e.g. 1080i)... these come out terrible).

However, as others have pointed out here, it is rarely like for like - the majority of the time, larger computer monitors have higher resolutions.

After this, if you really are comparing a similar specification monitor to TV, you should also take in to consideration a few additional facts such as warranty.

A TV usually comes with one year and is "designed" to be used for a few hours a day where as computer monitors usually come with 2-3 year warranties and the high end models (such as 25"+) are expected to be used for the majority of the day.

A further example to understand my point is to look at public display televisions - again, spec for spec, these are much more expensive than regular TVs but use higher quality components* and are rated for 24x7 usage.

(* component quality is subjective... I personally think they are very similar, but have a warranty to back it up - unless someone does a tear down, I doubt many people will know).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Ignoring the the part about whether we are being ripped off and answering this

My question for you, dear reader, is why would I get the monitor over the television?

Optimal Resolution 1920 x 1080 2560 x 1600

That is enough info for me. The TV may not show you more information than a 19" monitor. For example this ViewSonic Monitor is supposed to do 1920 x 1080.

I don't think I would like to use a 32" screen at that resolution for a computer monitor, (regardless of the cost), as I would expected the pixels to be bigger and blockier.

I would either go for a 30" monitor or two smaller monitors.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.