Off Topic: What Is The Best TV For Gaming?

Before I bought my Panasonic G10 roughly three years ago, I did a hefty amount of research. Is plasma better than LCD for games, response rates, contrast ratios, which had the deeper blacks, is burn-in still something to worry about. Back then I decided that the Panasonic G10 was the way to go and, for the most part, I've been extremely happy with that choice. Since then I've often thought about putting together a big TV buyer's guide for gamers, but I feel like my knowledge is a little out of date. I thought I'd throw it out to you guys? Which TV is best for gaming?

I remain suspicious of LED/LCDs, mainly because of response rates and such like, but we have a fairly incredible high-end Bravia in the office that tickled my fancy.

What TVs do you guys and girls use for gaming, and what would you recommend?


    A big one!

      I was going to say this. Shrinking in-game text and HUDs make a large HDTV nearly mandatory for gaming.

        Sadly I think you're right there. The text size in Halo 4 means reading the "who killed who" messages is impossible while amongst any sort of action.

        I've got a 32 inch Bravia LCD in the bedroom and a 50 inch Panasonic Neo Plasma in the lounge. I can barely read text on the Bravia, and 32 inches ins't exactly tiny... The Plasma is better in this regard, but I still do most of my gaming on the Bravia.

        I find the Bravia to be more responsive too. It is a 100hz model, rather than the more common 50hz available at the time. (To be honest, these are just numbers, I don't bother to understand what it means in practical terms.) Much clearer picture and better colours than the Panasonic.

    Interesting question that I probably won't have a great deal of insight for but I thought I would comment on anyway

    I think the TV in the loungeroom is Panasonic *I really should know, I stare at the thing enough*

    It's a little bit old *like a year or two* but still big and flatscreen and all

    I have not ever really noticed any TV related problems with any games, but again I guess I am looking looking

    My Samsung TV is incredibly laggy (even with Game Mode on), which is why I tend to just use my monitor and play console games at my desk now.

    Last edited 20/11/12 11:12 am

      I did a lot of research when I bought mine 3 years ago and this was the conclusion I came to about the Samsungs at the time. There were many people complaining about input lag when playing games one them.

      The sales guy thought I was crazy when I preferred the slightly older, harder to find fully backlit LG LED-LCD over the fancy new SUPER THIN sidelit Samsung LED-LCD. But I've been very happy with my decision since. I'd be even happier if free to air TV still showed sport in HD.

        SBS seems to be the only channel that consistently puts on HD broadcasts of sporting events (even One has completely dropped the ball there, even though it was meant to be their thing).

        I was really geared up to see the Tour de France live in HD this year. Then my SBS signal gave way and I ended up watching the livestream instead.

        It's a sad state of affairs when I can stream live NBA & NFL on to my TV and it still looks better than free-to-air AFL/NRL/cricket.

          This. It's like 7 putting the V8 Supercars on 7Mate their HD channel and broadcasting standard def, why must they do this... Q_Q

      Pro Tip: Turn motion plus, LED motion plus, Motion lighting, Mpeg filter, Noise filter all OFF

      If you've got a decent source you don't need post processing, it just slows everything down.

      I have a 2012 42" LED LCD Samsung, Super Street Fighter 4 Max Settings, 1080p 60fps, it's amongst the smoother or more responsive pictures I've ever seen.

    I have a LG 42" LCD tv I picked up at Easter last year for $600. At the time all I could think was that anything was better than my old awa 30" CRT. Only chose LCD because of the supposed power consumption tht plasmas require.

    I connect my Xbox 360 to a 19 inch Benq computer monitor using a video cable with a VGA output. I avoid HDTVs for gaming because of the small delay in video and audio. It makes rhythm games unplayable (the calibration features are always a compromise), and I notice it when playing Halo too.

    I have no idea but my 50 inch LED Samsung is hooked up to my laptop and is sexy as hell and does the trick.

    Clearly a High Definition CRT TV.

      It's funny, just last night I found out such a thing exists. Now I'm looking into grabbing one for myself, the one I've come across sounds pretty sweet. Just gotta check it out and make sure it's good enough for what I want, and passes the GH latency test :P

    LG Cinema 3D! comes with,
    1. 3D support, lightweight passive glasses (less darker when worn than active, works at angles)
    2. Modified glasses support split-screen to full screen for two players
    3. Built in apps for browsing and Youtube
    4. Wii likeMagic remote allows a good interface for using the TV
    5. Nvidia 3DTV Play supported
    6. Less expensive than active TVs in most cases so you can buy more games

    Havent sold them in a while.

    But rule of thumb was - For brighter colours, LED/LCD. Truer blacks and better contrast, Plasma.

    For dark rooms, plasma gives best result for movies (they are made for cinemas in darkened theatres). While games.... I cant give you a definite. Each game is different in the way it was made, something like Halo 4 that has darker themes and lots of shadows may benefit from Plasma more then LCD, but games like super mario/journey etc, would benefit from the brighter colours LED/LCD can provide.

    Response rates are pretty much a thing from the past NOTE **IF YOUR PREPARED TO SPEND THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF COIN**

    If your a cheap ass, go plasma for refresh rate. You need to spend the money on 3D capable LED/LCD to get decent refresh rates.

    Again my knowledge is 12ish months old. So things may be different with current gen TV's

    Oh and yes power is better on LED/LCD, but Plasma has come a long way, especially for the higher end models, they are better power consumption then 3 year old LCD tv's.

    Last edited 20/11/12 11:24 am

    I have a 42" LG LED in my room which lags, a 46" brave in my games room that isnt too bad but when it comes to halo or a competitive game nothing compares to my 26" Samsung led monitor, just have to sit a but closer.

    I got a 40 inch Vivo LCD from Dick Smith last year that I'm sure was wrongly priced - it had more HDMI inputs than advertised on the sticker for a start, plus extras like usb input. I've never noticed any kind of input lag with it. Also works great as a jumbo PC monitor.

    I bought a Panasonic 50" plasma about 2 years ago. It's a great TV, beautiful picture. But unfortunately, due to my crippling Street Fighter 4 addiction, I have got some burn in happening. It's quite annoying in films to be able to faintly see the countdown timer at the top of the screen.

    So now I just game on my PC mostly. Burn in's not an issue with my LCD monitor.


    Fact: Plasmas have deeper blacks:
    Fact: Plasmas suffer from image burn... a huge no no not just because of gaming huds, but also TV logos. sure some stations are a bit smarter and shift around the logos every few hours, still, i give it 2 months before image burn.

    Im not even going to recommend LCD here, because of how cheap LED backlit tv's have gotten

    LED TV's have great blacks, easily comparable to plasmas, do not suffer from image burn and a much better option.

      I have had a 50" plasma for 3 years no burn in. Even left an image sit there for 6 hours once on pause.

      Like all things. You have to spend the money to get the extra quality.

      I paid more for higher end panasonic for exact reason it doesnt have burn in.

      Buy cheap, get cheap, plasma or lcd.

      Burn in hasn't been an issue on plasma TVs for a very long time, it's not really a consideration with a new plasma.

        That's what I thought too. I bought almost the top of the line panasonic when I got mine,

        Still got some burn in.

        I had to put in a few hundred hours of SF4 to do it. And the TV was being used for SF4 for 80% of the time.

        So don't be fooled, it's still completely possible. You really have to think about what the tv is for. If it's for gaming primarily, and you only play 1 or 2 main games, then I would urge anyone to think twice before buying a plasma.

        If it's for a home theatre setup however, then I would absolutely recommend the plasma. The image quality is just beautiful - with the right tv of course. I still watch 'Dark Knight' and think "wow, just wow" at the flawlessness of the image. I'll never regret buying my plasma. I just regret hammering it with so much street fighter.

      My Samsung LCD suffered from burn in too. I didn't even think it was possible on LCDs. That, and a faulty backlight which left black streaks on the screen. And the occasional turning itself off, or on. I've replaced it with a Samsung LED LCD, if this one fails me i'm swearing off Samsung for good.

        Hehe, my Samsung turns itself off too sometimes, as if it's judged that I've watched to much TV/played too much PS3 and should have a break or go outside.

    Mark. Mate. What kind of question is this?

    Obviously the answer is a big fat CRT. Nothing beats those instantaneous response times, essential for latency-sensitive games like Guitar Hero. And no, that latency offset setting you can use doesn't count as a solution, because the notes still don't visually react in time and that can be just as off-putting as playing without it on.

    A few months back, my parents decided to get a shiny new LCD HDTV for Nanna, replacing the LG flatscreen CRT she had. I piped up and claimed that for myself, before it got binned. Now it sits here as my gaming TV. It's got a set of component inputs, which is pretty cool.Wish we still had the wide flatscreen CRT my parents used to have in their room though, that one had a SCART input which I totally could have used for some RGB gaming. Ah well, better than nothing I suppose.

    Actually that was the one problem with CRTs. You could never really get one that was great for both 4:3 and 16:9. The 4:3 was nice and huge, great for splitscreen and older consoles, but obviously can't do anything widescreen. Whereas the widescreen was great for that, but you could never get them as tall as the 4:3s, so they weren't as good for splitscreen.

      While I do kind of agree with you, have you tried reading text in a recent game on a CRT? It's pretty much impossible.

        *shrug* I've had no trouble with any of my Wii games :P

        In all seriousness though, I did have trouble with War For Cybertron when playing that through composite cables on a 32" LCD. Didn't have the CRT at the time, so not sure if that would have been better at all. Would've liked to have tried out the component-in on that thing, but I don't have any such cables for my 360 to test with. Pretty sure I've played Assassin's Creed II, Shadows of the Damned and The Gunstringer on the CRT though, and don't remember having any troubles with them.

          You won't have any issues with Ps2 wii etc. They were made for CRT TVs.
          It's 360 and PS3 that has the problem. It seems to be a HD console issue only.

    I bought a Samsung 46" LCD from JB hifi about 2 years ago, it wasn't the newest series (from the series just before the newest models, so not that old) and it wasn't very expensive, which works for me. It's got plenty of hdmi and usb2 + 3 ports which i hook up hard drives to and can stream stuff over the net (Wifi or ethernet) via the browser or through ps3 or whatever. It's got a digital tuner as well, which picks up HD channels great.

    I've never had ANY problems concerning lag or colour depth or anything in general. PS3 gaming is awesome, blu rays look ridiculous and the colours and movement are amazing, even when right up close. I chose it over most of the other models mainly for the motion flow (150hz) which really makes everything easy to watch (which is good for me because i get migraines a lot) compared to pretty much everything else i've seen that can be stuttery or blurry, LEDs and Plasmas included.

    I have a 5 year old Samsung Plasma. Its only 720p, (as are most console games anyway)

    Burn in is really a temporary thing. On the very rare cases when I leave a menu on (x360 dims after a few mins idle anyway) does it get a little burn, which quickly goes away soon as you use it again.

    I am very happy with it, its fast, sharp, bright and the colours really pop.

    No one here is talking about interpolation. That strange 'too smooth - slightly too fast' effect you get on LCD's 100hz and up.

    Some people like this, and some people don't.

    Plasmas don't have this problem because each pixel fires individually, as needed. Which means it doesn't really have a 'refresh rate' that you need to worry about.

    I have 55 inch bravia HX925 hooked up to a yamaha home theatre system YHT-698AU. not much but that's all I can afford. one touch hdmi sync and I also use Pioneer HDJ 2000 as headphones because of high treble fidelity.

    Currently using an older model LG LCD TV, bought about 4-5 years back and cost around the 900 mark. The thing I found necessary was to run applications/games at the televisions native resolution, this fixes a reasonable portion of the "difficult to read text" troubles that plague the whole tv as a monitor deal.
    Really depends on what you use it for though. Higher hz (100-200) will cost more but result in a smoother viewing experience, this will usually be reflected in response time too. If you are consciously making a decision to buy a TV for gaming then you ,definitely want something that is Full HD though, none of this 720p because you will struggle to read text and you will get a lot of colour blur/bleed (not quite what it is but it describes what it looks like). If you just want a big ass monitor with lots of desktop real estate then I would suggest looking at buying a monitor as opposed to a TV.
    If however you are buying it almost exclusively for watching media then you probably don't have to shell out for a 1080p colossus and something around the 40-50' 720p would be fine, it will still make a passable display for gaming but certain things struggle to fit comfortably on the screen. A lot of websites that aren't designed for that resolution tend to have overlapping frames and crammed together bits and pieces.
    A good deal of Television shows will have a bit of the top and bottom chopped off which can be frustrating if the show has subtitles, the solution being to run it in maximized window, rather than the more aesthetically pleasing full screen.
    And finally, the majority of the Windows UI gets crammed in with little regard for functionality or user friendliness (not that this is new in regards to a MS product but it is just much more apparent when you run windows off your TV).
    All that aside, most of those issues are ones you can adapt to or can circumvent and having a TV for a monitor is not all bad, I would suggest first however, hooking your comp up to your home TV and having a gaming session, extended internet foray and so on and get a feel for the pros and cons of using a TV for a monitor before replacing whatever you have got attached to your computer currently.

    for console gaming i use a 42" 3D Led tv from LG for Pc gaming i use a 24" asus monitor, both work great

    I recently brought a LG 55LM7600 cinema TV for the purpose and I am loving it. Picture is brilliant but the sound is only ok, but let be honest, what tv has great sound. I run very thing through my Yamaha av receiver though so not an issue for me

    I use a 7 year old Panasonic plasma for older stuff, (1024x768) One of the last to have a Japanese made panel. it has a great picture, but I'm really only doing Wii, xbox1, ps2 and mame on it.

    I game on an ASUS 27 inch; VE278w off the top of my head., its awesome, has 4 input types.

    More recently I got 3 fully working xga projectors off ebay for around 220 bucks (liquidation sale) so i'm thinking 3072x768 eyefinity outside on a 2x9m screen (sheets?) to relieve the boredom over christmas.

    Simple. You want the lowest response time you can get. The highest refresh rate - you are better off going 120hz or higher if you've got the cash. Full pixel resolution 1920x1080 (alot of TV's hide these details - my 81cm Dick Smith LCD accepts an 1080p signal, even though it is only 720p).
    Also one of the most important things is Video Scaling - alot the most technically advanced screens have shitty Video Scalers. Your best bet is to use an external, high quality scaler, and pass all you signals through that, directly to VGA and HDMI - mostly for signals that are lower than maximum resolution, anything lower than 720p native.

    Plasma is easily the best bang for buck and the only single downside to plasma vs led is the slight power consumption issue, which for the standard household amount to maybe $30-50 per year, if you are buying a decent plasma, the cheaper the plasma the less power efficient, but seeing as we are talking "the best" I don't think that is an issue here.

    Chance of burn in on any plasma made in the last 2 years is tiny, and if you are a responsible gamer the chances are smaller still. The only time you will face this problem is if you spend 8+ straight hours with a bright completely still image on the screen (yes this can include speedo in racing games, amount counts in FPS, health bars in RPGs, or the pause menu), so yes you have to be a little more concious about your TVs use, but you shouldn't have this issue because:

    a) you shouldn't leave your TV on if you are pausing the game and walking off for 8 hours, thats just irresponsible.
    b) you should not be playing a game for 8 hours straight, thats just irresponsible.

    This also can be negated by using the TVs auto-off ability, I have my plasma to auto off after 4 hours just in case, if I am using it for longer than that it gives me a message at 4 hours and I tell it to stay on.

    There is also a difference between burn in and image retention, all plasmas retain images for an amount of time after a long bright image, this will fade after a few minutes of an active picture and is not damage to the TV. Burn in is damage to the TV and as stated above rarely happens.

    Repsonse time on a plasma screen is 0.05s so all the garbage about CRTs beating that are silly because if you can notice the difference you are superhuman, congrats.

    Picture quality can be almost matched by a very high end LED TV, with full back lighting and dimming control etc etc but you're lookoing at ~$6k for a 46", which is a silly amount to spend when I got my V series 50" Pana for $1500 and it is still better than any TV on the market at the moment.

    If you don't like plasma but want something as good with lower power consumption, you will have to wait for OLED TVs, who knows when we will see those and god knows how much they will cost.

    I've sold TVs for 3 different retailers for a total amassed experience of 6+years.

      Repsonse time on a plasma screen is 0.05s so all the garbage about CRTs beating that are silly because if you can notice the difference you are superhuman, congrats.

        Nonsense. Depends on the tv. I go to quite a few fighting game tournies and we can all tell the laggy screens instantly. If you train at a game which specifies reflexes above all us, then you can feel the difference.

        This reminds me of the people debating whether the human eye can notice the difference between 60fps and 120fps. Yes it definitely can.

        Input lag is very real and very important. That's why fighting gamers are very specific about the screens they purchase.

          A shit tv doesn't mean the type of tv is to blame. Older cheaper lcd/plasma tvs (3+ years) did havea lot of problems with input lag, this has become an almost non issue with newer mid to high end tvs, seeing as this is a best tv to get I wouldn't think it was worth covering the you get what you pay for issue

            A shit tv doesn't mean the type of tv is to blame???

            Uh... Yeah! I'm pretty sure it does! But that's not what you meant to say, right?

            Cos a shit tv is a shit tv.

              By type I mean lcd/plasma/crt and obviously within all these types there are shit and good depending on brand and price.

      I've got an LG Plasma circa 2008 and it definitely has input lag..... It's good for movies and casual games, but for FPS/Racing games, forget it.

      I have it plugged in in duplicate mode with a LCD 27inch monitor and there is honestly a gulf beween them when they display the same content

      New plasma's may be better, but mine (which was good for 2008) certainly has lag

      "Repsonse time on a plasma screen is 0.05s so all the garbage about CRTs beating that are silly because if you can notice the difference you are superhuman, congrats."

      You don't know the difference between response time and input lag, congrats.

      One is how long it takes the pixels to change from one thing to the anther, generally measured as completely black to completely white. The other is how long it takes to process an input signal and display it on the screen.

      The latter is significantly larger than the former.

        congrats you don't state the right issue in the first place, had you said input lag vs response time in the first place maybe I would have agreed with you.

        Input lag on modern devices is a myth anyway, if you are using HDMI on a modern TV with a modern console you are transfering a digital signal via a digital means to a digital device the only "processing" time is how long it takes the signal to carry the info from the console to the tv, there is no conversion made. If you are using RGB or RCA then yes you can get input lag.

          And HDMI is only an option for a small number of platforms. Sure, I can play 360 on there. And soon, Wii U. But there's nothing to play my Wii, GameCube, N64, SNES or NES on. 2/7 is a tiny tiny amount of coverage, and it's even less than that when you measure up using the number of games in each respective library.

            And the number of people who play non-hd consoles is smaller again and then the number who play them professionally enough to care about input lag smaller again. So yes for this tiny niche of professional retro console players a CRT is a very slight advantage

              Professionally enough? Professionalism has nothing to do with it, I'm just talking about a bunch of guys sitting around trying to play a game. A couple of years back I had a few friends up from Melbourne, we cracked out the GameCube to have a game of Mario Smash Football. There's a part in that where you have an oscillating power meter that you have to stop in two specific areas with the right timing to be able to trigger whatever event happens. Not a single one of us could pull it off throughout several matches, it was just impossible to do thanks to the HDTV's latency.

              A CRT isn't an advantage, it's an essential part of having a game that hasn't been fundamentally broken by substandard technology.

                I've never had an issue with anything like this over any of the games on snes, n64 or wii (including such clunky, timing crucial games like Super Castlevania) so possibly you just need a better hdtv. Just sounds like poor excuses to try and prove your invalid point to me.

                Last edited 20/11/12 7:26 pm

    I remember the days when $500 was a lot to spend on a TV and Im only 30. Now days people don't bat an eyelid about dropping $2k on one. I guess that's the price of keeping up with the Jones.

    Off Topic. Spec Ops: The Line is only $7.50 on Green Man Gaming. Wheres the "this game is this much on Steam" style article?

    Last edited 20/11/12 1:16 pm

    I have a 32inch SAMSUNG LCD HDTV (Serial # LA32B66OT1FXXY) I think its a series 5 or 6. I find it a really good TV for bluray and video games. I would buy a Samsung panel again.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now