Ive always wondered why monitors even exist anymore? I mean TV anymore are identical hardware wise. Some are even better in the sense that there are no smart monitors. A 40in smart tv that is 1080p can go for as little as 300.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889624008 is proof enough.
I know lots of people talking about higher refresh rates in monitors, but im not seeing monitors releasing higher than 60 really. There are plenty that are higher, but all are 3d (i think). TVs anymore are hitting 240hz which is far higher than 60. My television bought last year on black friday was a 40in samsung smart tv with 60hz. At the same time for 100 more or so I could have had 120 or 240. Now I am not even seeing 60hz televisions anymore. So My question is should I just buy a tv over a monitor? Is the response time that much more on a tv or something? I mean monitors on average being 4ms or less. I dont see why there is really even a market for the two. Monitors have been evolving along with televisions. Its essentially the same technology, so why split the market? Having this market split is could ruin our world. If you think too much into it that is.
Think of it this way, no one goes out to buy a monitor anymore, they use what comes with their computer (99% of the time). People go out to look for TVs. Looking at monitors continuing to be produced at probably the same levels if not more so and that does two things. It creates products that will site in warehouses and wastes away resources that it requires to produce said products. I dont see why Hanns G, Viewsonic, Asus, HP, Dell all start making televisions. Id say they would make bank if they changed their items description from monitor to television. I can guarantee while Samsung keeps popping out smart tvs and ASUS continues to make monitors that a select few care about (gamers, professionals).
With all this said would you see a difference in a 27in monitor and tv that are both 1080p?
Televisions are actually cheaper just because they are thought as something separate as a computer. Thus meaning you can use it without a computer (which you can with any monitor now a days). More tvs are being produced and will continue forever to outnumber monitors. It so stupid that I even am distinguishing them as two separate markets. Monitors are more expensive than tvs, have shitty interfaces (no remote) and have no coax or rca ports (which would basically mean it is a tv if it does).
1. Size. Monitors are meant to be used on a desk, so they need a higher ppi, therefore they are smaller.
2. Inputs. Monitors need DVI (in the past) and Displayport (currently) much more than they need HDMI. Meanwhile, everything non computer related uses HDMI as a standard, so tvs need HDMI. HDMI costs money to implement (it isn't a free standard like Displayport), and adding more inputs than are needed costs too, so they aim the displays at the markets that need them.
3. Refresh rates. Tvs that are "240hz" aren't actually 240hz. Not really. Tvs don't need high refresh rates. Monitors do. Again, they are aiming them at the audiences that needs different technologies.
It is like tablets vs phones. Sure they are largely the same, and there is some overlap, but they are aimed at different markets which have different needs. You just don't seem to be seeing the economic side of this.
Sure, you COULD have have one (monitor would be a better name for such a screen than television imo based solely on the meaning of the words), and then have different inputs on different sets, vary the sizes and whatnot, but then you would just be back at them having different technologies (ppi, inputs, refresh rates) based on the markets which are computer use vs home theater-esque use and we are back to tvs vs monitors. So this is all pointless.
tl;dr There are monitors and tvs becasue they are different (slightly) and aimed at different markets. That is all there is to it.
They produce 30-60FPS, but the TV "fakes" the higher Hz by Flashing the screen that many times, but only showing the 30-60 frames. So yes, it is 240Hz, but it is NOT 240 FPS. they are not the same thing.
the problem is very few if any tv's have drivers so the os relys on the tv's edid which is usually very crapply coded so you get all kinds of scaling issues and few if any ways to fix them on the display. an nvidia gpu has no problem with this but intel and amd gpu's will give you all kinds of hell.