Advice needed please to help me choose a large (43") 4K display for coding and office work.
There will be the occasional casusal gaming (PS4) and bluray movies, but 80% of the time I will be coding in dark mode. I am sensitive to bad screens - flickering, light bleed, fuzziness, blue lights etc, so comfort is an important factor for me more than refresh rate or colour accuracy.

My top price is around £600 - research so far has narrowed down to either the LG 43UD79 or Acer DM431K

First, what are your opinions on those? Doesn't seem much between them other than £150 in price.

But second, I have noticed that I could get a decent 4K TV for less money, some with IPS or QLED displays.
Should I be considering this? Is there much of a difference between TV and Monitor displays of the same spec?

For example the LG 43UM7000PLA seems to have a similar spec but a lot less money and TV features included or the Samsung QLED Q60R https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-43-QLED-Q60R-TV/dp/B07NVRHMJ9

Please help me understand is a good 4K TV an option for me or something I should avoid and why Thanks

| |
  • 1
    Just a heads up, since none of the answers seems to be touching that subject yet: input lag. Refresh rate labels on TVs are all fun and games, but input lag is what disqualifies many TVs for use as a PC monitor. At least if you are somewhat sensitive to that. Here is a test and which settings to use for the Samsung you linked: youtube.com/watch?v=Edq2HZ4V9WQ – user13807 Apr 3 at 8:43
  • 1
    Something very important about TVs vs Monitors when it comes to 4K/UHD: A UHD monitor is actually 3840x2160 pixels because the monitors are expected to be used for their extra real estate. Meanwhile UHD TVs accept the resolution but don't always display it in a physical 3840x2160 pixel matrix. (i.e. LG's RGBW subpixel layout) They take advantage of the fact that you're sitting further away with a large TV to build cheaper "4K" panels that you couldn't see the difference with compressed UHD video anyways. Make sure the 4K TV you're buying actually has a 3840x2160 RGB panel! – Romen Apr 6 at 16:59
  • @Romen Shocking! Thanks for the tip, that is definitely something to look out for – userSteve Apr 7 at 9:41
  • 1

should I choose a tv over a monitor

yes, for anything larger than around 32" based on current pricing and...

computer monitors are generally 32" and smaller, come available with more connection types especially DisplayPrt (DP) and often include HDMI. They will be designed having a stand and sit around 3 feet from your eye. For a 4k resolution you are required to use either DP or HDMI connection.

my opinion: I have a 32" 4k LG computer monitor and while it is very nice, it's almost too big having all that screen and brightness in your face. So much so I think I like my old 27" 2560x1440 monitor better on my desk between one and two feet from my eye.

The TV's with 4k being common today, are all something like 42" and larger, and are most certainly more economical. There is little if any reason to not use a 4k big screen tv now as a computer monitor provided you can make use of HDMI; the tv's are likely to not come with DP and for 4k resolution you then must use HDMI. If your computer doesn't have HDMI but only DP, then you will be using a DP-to-HDMI adapter to make use of an HDMI cable to the tv. Again, this is for 4k (3840x2160).

Computer monitors are more designed around sitting on a desk within 3 feet of your face, whereas a big screen tv is not necessarily comfortable at such a close range and it's stand might be a little problematic but that's something a user could easily manage if they have the desire to. Everyone basically plays nintendo/xbox/playstation connected to big screen tv's. If response time was a significant issue for "gaming" it would be known, there is no response rate problem with good 4k tv's today. The color setup and picture controls on tv's I think have surpassed what is offered now on computer monitors; picture is probably better on 40+ inch big screen 4k tv's now than computer monitors. With the response rate and gaming, the big debate is does one really need 1-2ms response time of a TN type panel (sacrificing picture quality) or is the < ~6ms response time just fine. Back when big flat screen's were first coming out having > 10ms response time then one might argue it's likely a problem for hard gaming but certainly not for typical use. The refresh rate is another matter and basically a non issue; they will be either 30, 60, 120, or 144 Hz.

I am sensitive to bad screens - flickering, light bleed, fuzziness, blue lights etc, so comfort is an important factor for me more than refresh rate or color accuracy

suggest you test drive tv's at walmart/bestbuy/pcrichards/wherever to see how you can adjust them to meet your needs having the screen however many feet from your face.

big screen tv's 50" and larger work great in an office setting displaying powerpoint and video but typically 10 feet from anybody. Absolutely no reason you cannot use one like you mentioned.

Ideally you want a screen capable of a 60 Hz refresh or larger. Many good 4k big screen tv's come with at least a 60hz refresh rate. A 55" samsung UN55NU6900FXZA for $360 for example.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you! I have asked this question on many forums and yours is the first to understand what I'm asking and answer clearly. I rather not sit close to a huge screen, but I need lots of pixel real estate and 4K seems the obvious choice to get the most possible in the simplest way. To make viewing 4K comfortable the pixel density needs to be around 105 PPI which works out to be about 42". The key question then becomes, why are some dedicated monitors almost twice the price a TV from the same manufacturer with almost the same quality of screen, there doesn't seem to be any justifiable reason – userSteve Apr 2 at 7:54

If you are not planning on gaming on a gaming PC or laptop, I would buy a TV, because they are cheaper and refresh plenty of times per second for coding, watching Bluray movies/tv-shows, and playing some PS4 (which refreshes 60 times per second aka 60 FPS). If you were gaming on a high refresh rate system (120 FPS or higher) a TV would not suffice for high refresh rates. I do not see a major technical advantage over a $600 monitor and a $300 TV at this point. In the future, we may see monitors get higher refresh rates like 120hz and 144hz, but currently, there is no big advantage between a monitor and similar sized TV.

Those two monitors you have narrowed down to, I would personally choose the Acer DM431K because it is cheaper, and will do everything you want it to do and nothing you don't. I personally think the LG 43US79-B has a cool gimmick/feature that allows four screens to be displayed at the same time. It is cool if you want to watch tv, render videos, manage a data server and play video games at the same time, but not an average person needs that.

Between the Samsung QLED Q60R, Acer DM431K and the LG 43US79-B, I would get the Samsung QLED Q60R because it is a better deal and there is no large technological advantages between a monitor and TV. Samsung is an extremely reputable brand and has Smart TV features included, where the monitors do not.

| improve this answer | |
  • Great advice thank you! I've not seen a QLED screen up close, I am wondering how it compares to IPS for eyestrain and contrast – userSteve Apr 4 at 9:22
  • QLED is actually just a color filter. You need to be comparing IPS vs LED. I would say that they are equal in contrast and quality. – Trevor Hummer Apr 4 at 17:14

Displays for gaming use have a high refresh rate; televisions with a computer input generally don't. If you select a television instead of a monitor, your gaming performance will suffer.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks, but gaming is not much of an issue for me – userSteve Apr 2 at 7:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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