Jump to content


- - - - -

Which of these is better for gaming?


#1 Derrick1979   I think I've been here to long ! CAGiversary!   5966 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Derrick1979

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:03 PM

I know this has been asked millions of times on here and sorry if this is the wrong thread, but if you people would be kind enough to lend me some of your TV knowledge which of these two would you go for for playing a 360 some pros/cons would be nice..

Phillips 47" 120Hz 1080p LCD
Vizio 47" 120Hz 1080p LCD

Both of them have a bunch of ports for stuff so I dont need that just basically anything pictures quality gaming related I may need to know.

Thanks a Bunch

#2 guinaevere   the incredible disappearing moderator CAGiversary!   7466 Posts   Joined 16.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:15 PM

From what I've been told by folks who work in retail, a LOT of Vizios are returned because of problems. I have no idea how good the picture is compared to the Philips, though.

Current issue of Consumer Reports has HD LCD comparisons. All I noticed was Samsung and Sony had best picture image, so that was as far as I looked. You may just stop by a grocery store and take a look in the mag and see how the Philips and Vizios rate.

#3 BigD63   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   249 Posts   Joined 13.6 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:26 PM

More info like contrast ratio, and response time please.

#4 shrike4242   Not My Job Anymore, Go Bother Someone Else. CAGiversary!   49880 Posts   Joined 16.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:27 PM

For gaming, make sure you get as low a refresh rate as you can. Also, you want to see if you can get a "game mode" on the TV, which turns off all extra processing for picture quality, as that can add in lag into the game. Some people on FPS's have issues with input lag causing problems. Other people, it's not an issue.

I'd make some stops over at AVSForum and do some research on there. It can be a bit of information overload at times with some of the info they give, though it is a wealth of information.

http://www.avsforum.com is where you'd go.

From what the OP posted, it could be any of the following:
Vizio:
http://www.vizio.com...d=1640&pid=1504 (SV470XVT)
http://www.vizio.com...d=1628&pid=1504 (VO47L)

Philips:
http://www.consumer....V 47PFL7603D-27 (47PFL7603D/27)
http://www.consumer....V 47PFL7403D-F7 (47PFL7403D/F7)
http://www.consumer....V 47PFL5603D-F7 (47PFL5603D/F7)
http://www.consumer....V 47PFL3603D-F7 (47PFL3603D/F7)

#5 Malik112099   Got Wife? CAGiversary!   8221 Posts   Joined 14.9 Years Ago  

Malik112099

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:27 PM

The cheaper one. You aren't going to notice a difference in those 2 sets and paying extra for 120Hz is pointless.

#6 shrike4242   Not My Job Anymore, Go Bother Someone Else. CAGiversary!   49880 Posts   Joined 16.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:32 PM

The cheaper one. You aren't going to notice a difference in those 2 sets and paying extra for 120Hz is pointless.

If all you're doing is gaming, yes. If you're planning to do other things with the TV, such as BluRay movies or HD content, then it's worth looking at.

And noticing a difference is an opinion, not a fact. I went from an Olevia 537H 720p set to a Sony 52-KDLXBR6 1080p and the difference was night and day.

1080p is a requirement at a set that big. 120Hz, IMO, is also a requirement for future proofing. Good contrast ration and low refresh rate are requirements.

#7 Derrick1979   I think I've been here to long ! CAGiversary!   5966 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Derrick1979

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:41 PM

Thanks for the Info so far and the TV would be used for gaming as well as tv watching and a regular DVD player im not interested in BR at this time and we just need a new tv because of our 10+ year old SDTV we have and at this point you might as well go with a LCD Tv..

Here are models im interested in:

Phillips 47" Model # 47PFL7403D
Vizio 47" Model # SV470XVT1A
Sharp Aquos Model # LC46D85U

Thanks for the responses so far and im going to use the links you gave me Shrike to help as well.

#8 Malik112099   Got Wife? CAGiversary!   8221 Posts   Joined 14.9 Years Ago  

Malik112099

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:48 PM

And noticing a difference is an opinion, not a fact. I went from an Olevia 537H 720p set to a Sony 52-KDLXBR6 1080p and the difference was night and day.


You went from a 37" 720p set to a 52 inch 1080p set. If you didn't notice a difference you would be legally blind.

This guy is comparing 2 tvs that are the same size/specs. He really isn't going to notice a diff.

#9 shrike4242   Not My Job Anymore, Go Bother Someone Else. CAGiversary!   49880 Posts   Joined 16.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:53 PM

Link to the Sharp:
http://www.sharpusa....58,2022,00.html

In specs, the Philips has the lowest refresh rate at 2ms, as well as the highest dynamic contrast rate at 33000:1. Next is the Sharp with a 4ms refresh rate, and an unknown contrast rate or dynamic contrast rate. The Vizio has a 5ms refresh rate, and a 6500:1 dynamic contrast ratio.

The Sharp has 5 HDMI inputs, 2 component inputs, and 1 PC input, versus 4 HDMI, 2 component and no PC input on the Philips, with 4 HDMI, 2 component and 1 PC input on the Vizio.

I think the Philips might give you the best picture choice out of all three of those, though that's on my quick glance at the specs. I'd recommend some time on AVSForum to get more of an idea from people that chose one of those sets, as well as people that chose another set in place of those.

You went from a 37" 720p set to a 52 inch 1080p set. If you didn't notice a difference you would be legally blind.

This guy is comparing 2 tvs that are the same size/specs. He really isn't going to notice a diff.

Point taken, though not everyone does see any difference, save size, on what you're feeding it.

With a DCR difference and refresh rate differences on the Philips versus the other two sets, I think he might notice some differences with that one over the two.

#10 Malik112099   Got Wife? CAGiversary!   8221 Posts   Joined 14.9 Years Ago  

Malik112099

Posted 15 December 2008 - 04:59 PM

DCR is meant for viewing in dark rooms and doesn't work properly if there are bright images set against a dark backdrop. It is just smoke and mirrors.

http://en.wikipedia...._contrast_ratio

A notable recent development in the LCD technology is the so called "dynamic contrast" (DC). When there is a need to display a dark image, the display would underpower the backlight lamp (or decrease the aperture of the projector's lens using an iris), but will proportionately amplify the transmission through the LCD panel. This gives the benefit of realizing the potential static contrast ratio of the LCD panel in dark scenes, when the image is watched in a dark room. The drawback is that if a dark scene does contain small areas of superbright light, image quality may be over exposed.
The trick for the display is to determine how much of the highlights may be unnoticeably blown out in a given image under the given ambient lighting conditions.
Brightness, as it is most often used in marketing literature, refers to the emitted luminous intensity on screen measured in candela per square metre (cd/m2). The higher the number, the brighter the screen.
It is also common to market only the dynamic contrast ratio capability of a display (when it is better than its static contrast ratio), which should not be directly compared to the static contrast ratio. A plasma display with a static 5000:1 contrast ratio will show superior contrast to an LCD display with 5000:1 dynamic and 1000:1 static contrast ratio when the input signal contains full range of brightnesses from 0 to 100% simultaneously. However they will be on par when input signal ranges only from 0 to 20% brightness.

#11 shrike4242   Not My Job Anymore, Go Bother Someone Else. CAGiversary!   49880 Posts   Joined 16.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 05:01 PM

Without any mention of non-DCR contrast ratio for all the sets, it's the only contrast spec to go on. Which is why I keep pushing to look on a AVSForum.com, as there's lot of people that own those sets and explain their like/dislike for the sets.

Around here, if it's not a low-send set, chances aren't that great someone owns it. On AVSForum, there's plenty of people that own those sets the OP is discussing.

#12 lolwut?   Thank you BasedGod CAGiversary!   4392 Posts   Joined 12.4 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 05:07 PM

Samsung LN46A650

/thread


If that's out of your price range or whatever, all I'm going to say is never by Vizio.

Ever.

#13 Derrick1979   I think I've been here to long ! CAGiversary!   5966 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Derrick1979

Posted 15 December 2008 - 05:29 PM

I may go with the 46" Sharp Aquos the site is offering because it has 4ms and it also comes with a blue ray player for 1299.99... not as low of a ms time as the phillips and its a inch smaller but its slightly cheaper and comes with something free which always works for me ha ha..

Here is the link to it and you can find the others listed on there are well that I was interested in..

http://accessories.u...19&sku=A2288410

Thanks

#14 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 15.8 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:09 PM

You went from a 37" 720p set to a 52 inch 1080p set. If you didn't notice a difference you would be legally blind.

This guy is comparing 2 tvs that are the same size/specs. He really isn't going to notice a diff.


And from a junk brand to a name brand, while the OP is looking at two cheaper brands.

I wouldn't buy a Philips or Vizio personally, but I guess if it's just for gaming it's ok--especially with the age ranges here the OP is probably a college student on a tight budget and in that case nothing wrong with a small, cheaper brand TV. I tried a Vizio plasma when I bought my HDTV in June 2007--it buzzed like hell and a tech couldn't fix it so I returned it and went with a 50" Sony LCD RPTV and have been 100% pleased.

EDIT: Or not as I just saw Derrick's last post!. If you can afford it, go with that one 100%. You get what you pay for in going with a name brand over a cheap brand.

Edited by shrike4242, 15 December 2008 - 07:38 PM.


#15 Derrick1979   I think I've been here to long ! CAGiversary!   5966 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Derrick1979

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:22 PM

And from a junk brand to a name brand, while the OP is looking at two cheaper brands.

I wouldn't buy a Philips or Vizio personally, but I guess if it's just for gaming it's ok--especially with the age ranges here the OP is probably a college student on a tight budget and in that case nothing wrong with a small, cheaper brand TV. I tried a Vizio plasma when I bought my HDTV in June 2007--it buzzed like hell and a tech couldn't fix it so I returned it and went with a 50" Sony LCD RPTV and have been 100% pleased.

EDIT: Or not as I just saw Derrick's last post!. If you can afford it, go with that one 100%. You get what you pay for in going with a name brand over a cheap brand.


What does that part I colored mean? And no im not in college im 29 but have a family an yes prices mean something to me..

Did see a 52" on the same site which basically was the same Sharp Aquos w/ free BR player but that has 5ms I think it said....

Whats the deal when you go 50+ because it seems the ms numbers are a bit higher

Edited by shrike4242, 15 December 2008 - 07:38 PM.


#16 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 15.8 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:24 PM

It means go with the Sharp Aquos over the Vizio or Phillips.

Price means something to most of us, but it's better to save up a bit more and go with a name brand if it's going to be your main TV IMO. I was just saying cheaper brands are ok for college where they're going to be moved a lot most likely, more risk of getting broken in a party etc. :D

#17 shrike4242   Not My Job Anymore, Go Bother Someone Else. CAGiversary!   49880 Posts   Joined 16.3 Years Ago  

Posted 15 December 2008 - 07:39 PM

It means go with the Sharp Aquos over the Vizio or Phillips.

Price means something to most of us, but it's better to save up a bit more and go with a name brand if it's going to be your main TV IMO. I was just saying cheaper brands are ok for college where they're going to be moved a lot most likely, more risk of getting broken in a party etc. :D

I forgot about this little bit, where Philips is getting out of the TV business and Funai is taking over for them:

http://news.cnet.com...-9914064-7.html

With that figured into the mix, I'd suggest either one of the Sharps over the Philips or the Vizio.

#18 Derrick1979   I think I've been here to long ! CAGiversary!   5966 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Derrick1979

Posted 16 December 2008 - 01:20 PM

Well thanks for all the info but I decided on a set, went for the most bang for the buck and got a Sharp 52" 1080p for $1299 So hopefully this will suit my need for casual movie/tv watching and my 360 gaming :D

Thanks people

#19 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 15.8 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 16 December 2008 - 06:23 PM

Good choice. Good brand and the biggest one you've listed and that's also key. No one ever complains about their TV being too big, but many people regret buying a smaller set.

That should be gretat for gaming and movie/TV. If you're like me, you'll get back into watching more movies and TV after making the leap to a big HDTV.

#20 Derrick1979   I think I've been here to long ! CAGiversary!   5966 Posts   Joined 14.3 Years Ago  

Derrick1979

Posted 17 December 2008 - 01:50 PM

Good choice. Good brand and the biggest one you've listed and that's also key. No one ever complains about their TV being too big, but many people regret buying a smaller set.

That should be gretat for gaming and movie/TV. If you're like me, you'll get back into watching more movies and TV after making the leap to a big HDTV.


Thanks now its just the wait for the damn thing to come and with the every other day snowstorm around here im sure thats going to hinder...

:bomb: I wanna play my 360 in HD lol