How many inches do you prefer? Monitor/TV wise for gaming?

[Amir Kondori]

I game on PC and sit anywhere from 1.5'-2.5' when on mouse and keyboard and upwards of 7' when using my controller. I have a 27", have used a 30" and think anywhere between a 27" and 32" is ideal for PC gaming. Of course I have a 2560x1440, 144hz, IPS monitor so the image quality is really good.

I wouldn't want to use an HDTV with my PC unless it was solely for controller games that I could sit back to play. How big would be ideal would depend on how far away I was sitting but for 7' to 14' something around 60-65" would be best.

 

[FPLOON]

TV: In the 30s... (My room is small, dammit... It ain't no alternative Living Room...)
Monitor: Enough inches... (This goes double for duel screening... I got e-mails to check...)

Other than that, I go on price more than anything... If I don't have the dough, then those [extra] inches are a no-go...

 

[aozgolo]

Depends largely on how far you sit away from it, the main thing is you want to be able to fill your view as much as possible with the game UNLESS you are prone to multitasking, which I do a lot, part of why I have 2 monitors.

 

[Skatalite]

I was speaking with a guy who works in the same building as me and both myself and him are avid gamers. We were joking about a large 55 inch TV that came for a customer today and I pointes out that 55 inche would be way to big for gaming. He has a 24inch screen and I have a 32 inch TV that I use for my laptop and some gaming.

Ehh, too big for gaming...? That makes no sense. I'm gaming just fine on my 50'' TV and there's no way I'd go back to a smaller one.

 

[laggyteabag]

I used to game on a 32" TV on my desk for my console and PC gaming, but since that TV was dropped, I now use a 24" monitor, and I have been doing so for a good few years, now. I first thought that it was probably going to be tiny, but as it turns out, bigger does not always mean better, especially when the screen is only around 2ft away from you.

 

[Monk5127]

3x 24" due to desk size constraints.
Will be 1x 34" (21:9)+ 2x 27" when space is less of an issue.

 

[Remus]

My monitor is 24in. If I absolutely must use KB/M, I stick to it. For everything else, I have an HDMI cord running from one of my mini-display ports to my 50in Sony Bravia. I use it for all my witchering, uncharting, pretty much any game with controller optional. Since it sits back and to the side of my desk, KB/M isn't exactly feasable. But since I run both TV and PC at the same resolution, swapping back and forth is easy as 2 clicks. The TV's maybe 8 feet away. Perfect distance for gaming on that size of screen.

 

[Veldel]

42 inch tv and a 24 inch monitor is what I play on often putting side stuff on monitor while I play on tv

 

[gsilver]

I used to have a 30" 16:10 monitor. It was too big.
Now, I have a 27" 16:9 monitor (about the same vertical height as a 24" 16:10) It feels about right.


As for my TV, I've got a 55" and will be replacing it with a 65" in a year or so.

All of my non kb/m gaming is on the tv.

 

[step1999]

I have a 19" 16:10 monitor. 4:3 and 16:10 are both fine, but 16:9 can fuck off as a monitor aspect ratio and stick to TVs. And anything bigger than 24" has no place on a desk, unless you're sitting across the room from it.

Why do you not like 16:9 for monitors? I've never understood why anyone has a problem with it. The only time I've seen a good argument for 1 aspect ratio being better than another is Nuclear Throne, whcih the creator says is in 4:3 because 16:9 encourages horizontal exploration over vertical due to being able to see further in that direction, whereas 4:3 doesn't have that since it's closer to sqaure. That argument doesn't really apply to 16:9 v. 16:10 though, so...

 

[Major_Tom]

Why do you not like 16:9 for monitors? I've never understood why anyone has a problem with it. The only time I've seen a good argument for 1 aspect ratio being better than another is Nuclear Throne, whcih the creator says is in 4:3 because 16:9 encourages horizontal exploration over vertical due to being able to see further in that direction, whereas 4:3 doesn't have that since it's closer to sqaure. That argument doesn't really apply to 16:9 v. 16:10 though, so...

It's too wide. It doesn't matter when you're sitting far away from it like with a TV, but up close height is more important to me than width, and to match my 19" monitor's height I would need 21" 16:9, but only 17" 4:3.

 

[MercurySteam]

It's too wide. It doesn't matter when you're sitting far away from it like with a TV, but up close height is more important to me than width, and to match my 19" monitor's height I would need 21" 16:9, but only 17" 4:3.

16:9 is too wide? 16:9 and 6:10 have the same number of pixels horizontally while the latter has slightly more vertically. I literally cannot understand the point you're trying to make here. 16:9 is the standard aspect ratio for widescreen TVs and desktop monitors.

4:3 and 16:10 are both fine, but 16:9 can fuck off as a monitor aspect ratio and stick to TVs. And anything bigger than 24" has no place on a desk, unless you're sitting across the room from it.

I'm wondering why in the name of all that's good an reasonable that you would even consider using a 4:3 monitor, as if the advent of widescreen monitors never happened. And if you're using at 19" screen you must be sitting really close to it. Nobody I know uses 4:3 or anything less than 22". As for the "anything bigger than 24" has no place on a desk", go look at the workspace of any graphic designer, or businessman that spends all day looking at spreadsheets and I guarantee you'll find at least one 27" screen. Maybe two.

 

[sanquin]

I have a 27,5 inch screen for my computer. (basically it's also higher, not just wider like most wide-screens) And it's just about perfect for me. For my TV I... think I have like a 40 inch. Not exactly sure. And it's big enough for me, though I wouldn't mind something a little bit bigger. Maybe 50. Probably because I sit pretty far away from the screen.

 

[DefunctTheory]

It's too wide. It doesn't matter when you're sitting far away from it like with a TV, but up close height is more important to me than width, and to match my 19" monitor's height I would need 21" 16:9, but only 17" 4:3.

16:9 is too wide? 16:9 and 16:10 have the same number of pixels horizontally while the latter has slightly more vertically. I literally cannot understand the point you're trying to make here. 16:9 is the standard aspect ratio for widescreen TVs and desktop monitors.

It's the ratio. Some people feel that 16:9 'wastes' precious square inches on the sides of the screen, while 16:10 puts those square inches where it matters, in the middle.

4:3 and 16:10 are both fine, but 16:9 can fuck off as a monitor aspect ratio and stick to TVs. And anything bigger than 24" has no place on a desk, unless you're sitting across the room from it.

I'm wondering why in the name of all that's good an reasonable that you would even consider using a 4:3 monitor, as if the advent of widescreen monitors never happened.

Some coders/spreadsheet enthusiast swore by 4:3 and refused to switch to wide screens.

That is, until those individuals were introduced to the screen swivel mounts.

 

[Major_Tom]

I'm wondering why in the name of all that's good an reasonable that you would even consider using a 4:3 monitor, as if the advent of widescreen monitors never happened. And if you're using at 19" screen you must be sitting really close to it. Nobody I know uses 4:3 or anything less than 22". As for the "anything bigger than 24" has no place on a desk", go look at the workspace of any graphic designer, or businessman that spends all day looking at spreadsheets and I guarantee you'll find at least one 27" screen. Maybe two.

Well, you know me now. It's probably because I'm used to small laptop screens, until 2008 I only had 15" 4:3 laptops. Again, like the person I originally replied to said, size means nothing without an aspect ration. I was talking about 24" 16:10, I guess that would be like 27" 16:9.

They had 24" 16:10 monitors at my faculty a few years back, and I just din't know where to look and I constantly kept backing away from it. Recently, I applied for a Cisco certificate and they only had 19" 4:3 monitors in our class and I was completely fine with using them. I'm also fine with multiple monitors since you focus on one at the time, I just don't like huge single monitors. As a matter of fact I currently have a 17" 16:10 laptop and a 19" monitor on my desk and I like that setup. I'm typing this on the laptop and playing games on the desktop.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

My 360 is plugged into a 55" screen. It's not too big for gaming. It depends how far away you sit from the screen, that dictates how much of your vision is filled by the image ("Field of View" or FoV). It's fine for me, not too big at all.

My PC on the other hand has a 23" 16:9 1080p screen. It's fantastic, a nice size mostly chosen because of the space it occupies. Had I a little more space I'd probably go 27" 1440p. Saying that, 21:9 "superwide" screens are a thing now. I haven't seen any in action but I'm very interested as they may be a better way to game. I like the idea of having more horizontal real estate for gaming, it would certainly make it more immersive (though many console ports notably lack FoV options).

Nothing wrong with 16:9 monitor to those naysayers. Everything works perfectly on mine without fail. No program, site, game etc has any issue with 16:9 vs. 16:10. Maybe I'm missing one more (potential) row of icons...oooh. Videos look much better with less black bars, everything else is the same.

 

[DanielBrown]

Got a 55" TV that seemed very big at first, but you get used to it quickly. I could imagine having a 65" tbh, but this will have to do for now! As for monitors I've got two 24" screens. They took a lot more getting used to and unfortunately I feel they are too big since I moved. I could only fit a small desk at the only location that works for a PC-area in my living room so I had to pull out the desk and push the monitor back so much that it's on the edge of falling down for it to work.
A 20" screen would probably work a lot better, but downgrading feels wrong so I don't think I'll bother unless a screen breaks. I play most games on my TV anyways since I discovered the wonders of HDMI-cables and PC controllers.