55" TV for HTPC

Discussion in 'Audio Visual' started by robertgd, Sep 2, 2013.

  1. robertgd

    robertgd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Thrillawong 2234
    I'm after a new TV, which will be solely for HTPC/Console use. I won't ever be watching actual broadcasts on it.

    My budget is around $1000, and my only requirements are obviously full HD, at the least 50" (but aiming for 55"), and absolutely no interface lag or whatever using a HTPC. I've heard the cheapies are bad at this, but not too sure if they've improved at all. I'm staying away from Kogan, and would like to buy locally.

    I went to the Good Guys yesterday and saw this one:

    http://www.thegoodguys.com.au/buyonline/Hisense_55"(139cm)_FHD_LED_LCD_100Hz_TV_HL55K160PZL

    The quality looked really nice for such a cheap TV. My GF has a Hisense (which is quite old now) and she's had no issues with it.

    My only concern is how it will be with a HTPC.

    I don't want Smart anything, that's all handled by my HTPC. I don't care for 3D (but I realise most have it now), I don't need PVR. Just a decent no frills panel that looks good (relative to my budget) and works flawlessly with HDMI devices. We have some 84" LG UHD at work, and it's a complete piece of shit with a laptop plugged in - mouse/interface lag galore - videos tear - just general crap (and this is a $25k TV!)

    Any feedback/recommendations?
     
  2. azron

    azron Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,076
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Picture quality is a subjective thing. If that panel looks good to you, then grab it. I have a, now old, Sony 55" LCD. And it's an awesome panel for both gaming (PS3) and HTPC duties.

    And what sort of laptop and what sort of connection were you presenting to this monster of a panel? Unsure if laptop video card would be able to drive a panel at its native resolution...
     
  3. OP
    OP
    robertgd

    robertgd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Thrillawong 2234
    It certainly looked good to me - I just want to avoid input lag at all costs, as I may be using my HTPC for gaming (such as FPS).

    As for the LG, we have plugged in multiple Macbook Pro's (with decent discreet GPU's in them) - all outputting to only 1080p (so not full UHD res) and they all suffer from the same lag. I know TV's have a "game mode" setting, but for the life of us we couldn't get it right - very unintuitive.
     
  4. self_slaughter

    self_slaughter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,711
    I know on my old series 5 Samsung if you renamed the input to "PC" it put it in an even lower lag state then game mode.

    Was a good TV for the job, 51", full HD, plasma, low lag and only cost me about $660 at the start of the year. :thumbup:

    I think it was an E531 or something from memory...

    [​IMG]

    Tried using a single big screen after coming from eyefinity, but it was shit in comparison lol.

    [​IMG]

    So I sold it and went for 27" 2560x1440 @ 110Hz now.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2013
  5. OP
    OP
    robertgd

    robertgd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Thrillawong 2234
    Everyone is raving about Plasma, and everything tells me I should get one.

    But I just can't shake the idea of them being old technology, thicker, heavier, more power consuming, and more complex. It just puts me off a little.
     
  6. self_slaughter

    self_slaughter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,711
    Yeah I don't pay for electricity here so I couldn't care less about that lol.
    I was just after a responsive low lag screen on the cheap with good black levels etc and that's exactly what plasma excels at.
    That samsung had as little input lag as I could find with the PC mode trick within my budget when I first went looking for a big screen.

    Only real downside for me was a little bit of IR, but hell... even my PLS computer monitor gets some IR.
    Although this thing is fucking spastic input lag wise (The PLS), gotta love having no scaler and no osd etc for pure mouse responsiveness.
    Add that on top of disabling vsync and never enabling any sort of post processing or motion blur effects and it's pure gaming heaven.

    The plasma was nicer to game on though then this monitor was at 60Hz.
    At 120Hz though it's a whole different ballgame though.
     
  7. Frag

    Frag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,154
    Location:
    Perth
    Modern plasmas really only use a little more power - some good power comparison pages about that work out running cost for you.

    ^^ That was a generic average based study but model specific you can certainly find some eco plasmas.

    As for thicker, they will always be a little wider than edge lit but really the new plasmas are very thin. Heavier yes, old tech - LCD has been out for awhile as well, they are both old tech when you consider that OLED will be affordable in the next few years. Each has its merits, it all depends on what you like as its really a subjective thing.

    One that always gets me is the viewing angles on plasma completely outclass any LCD, so if you have a wide room and don't always watch head on then Plasma will give you the better experience assuming your lighting conditions are favorable for plasmas.

    But if you are on a budget you will certainly get a bigger/better plasma :) Just watch a few and perhaps check out AVSForums for the reviews and feedback on the models you shortlist
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2013
  8. Euphoreia

    Euphoreia Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,365
    That link is WAY out. We don't pay 11c/kwh here.

    Make sure to use the calculator further down.
     
  9. evilasdeath

    evilasdeath Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    4,992
    A plasmas power usage is very much related to the display brightness. Plasmas also use more power to show white than they do to show black, i have a 55" plasma myself and since moving from my old boxy 64cm CRT i have seen no difference in my power bill.

    I once thought the same thing and early panels used like 600-800w these days i think mine was rated at like 270w peak under normal use, the comparable LCD used like 240w, sure it use's more power but it's not much more.

    Additionally the plasma is peak, my understanding is that an LCD will use the same amount of power pretty much constantly where a plasma will go up and down depending on the screen content. It might be different today however now that LCDs use things like local dimming but just my thoughts.
     
  10. Fishface

    Fishface Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,612
    Location:
    Adelaide
    The first colour LCD TV was released by Casio in 1983. Plasma TVs did not appear until around 1997.

    The cost and difficulties in producing large LCD panels slowed the uptake of LCDs for some time.

    So Plasma is the newer technology.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    robertgd

    robertgd Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Thrillawong 2234
    Well it technically uses phosphors which is CRT technology. But I don't really mind.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: