1090°

5 of the Best HDTV for Gamers

There are thousands of different TVs developed to-date and with that many options it can be difficult to run a side by side comparison for which is the best and at what price. A review of 5 of the best LCD TVs for gamers.

Read Full Story >>
tumeroks.com
Why dis5546d ago

"Sony’s XBR series LCD TVs is a leader when it comes to picture quality"

???????

Samsungs sell the way the do not because they look cool lol.

LeonSKennedy4Life5546d ago

Samsungs are cheaper than Bravias...

...moron.

You're turning me into an Atheist over here!!!

- Ghost of Sparta -5546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

"Samsungs sell the way the do not because they look cool lol."

You make no sense.

"Why dis" lol. Why post? Retard.

pshizle5546d ago

i have to say SONY makes some damn good TV's up there with

Pioneer and Panasonic

to bad pioneer dropped out though.

Mikerra175546d ago

I have a 42" LG its a DLP, and i believe it to be the best tv I have ever bought.
I used to own both LCD and plasma

jeseth5546d ago

I love everything about Bravias. Sony makes excellent TV's. You pay a little more but I've never had a Sony TV die on me.

I also like Samsungs and LGs. Both are really good bang for your buck. The Samsung TOC and Sharp Aquos are top notch too.

Why dis5546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

Sony's TVs over priced and under perform everybody knows that. People defending the brand are doing so because you have spent alot of money on the set and are brand loyal lol. I read alot of TV reviews because I buy them for friends and family with poor credit because I can.

1.11 in the gamer zone is an example of defending the set he saved his money for. The only Plasma I'd get would be the Kuro

Man_of_the_year5545d ago (Edited 5545d ago )

i agree

i was about to buy a Sony Bravia but after doing some research i decided to go with Samsung. i own a 32' LCD and a 48' LCD and even though i love the new Sharps but find them a little out of my price range at the moment, i am extremely happy with my Samsungs. I made the right decisions.

Will NEVER touch a PLASMA...NEVER!!!

Mikerra175545d ago

then you will never experience full HD (lol Im a dlp/plasma fanboy)

Man_of_the_year5543d ago

Thats Odd...someone better tell Samsung that TRUE 1080p is not "full HD" according to Mikerra17.

LCD has always been the preferred TV for gaming while PLASMA is for movies...however i will still never own a PLASMA...there is a reason why PLASMA TV's are cheaper than their LCD counterparts.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 5543d ago
joydestroy5546d ago

yeah!!! i have number 2! :D

Conan9975546d ago

any size samsung from the a650 line is probably the best for games. i was a tv salesman for a while and sharps (especially panasonic) really didn't look that good compared to samsung & sonys (samsung makes sony's lcd panel)

but i think they went with the sharp as number 1 b/c of the 5 hdmis. Who needs 5 hdmis tho? just get a receiver at that point.

Good choice with the a650

Stubacca5546d ago

LCDs???

Are you crazy? If you want quality, you gotta go PLASMA.

LCDs are for small TVs and portable devices. Go ask Panasonic...

_Q_5546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

And my Panny TH-50PZ80U begs to differ. How many Plasmas you played games on? From your statement, I'm guessing not many.

Parappa The Rappa5546d ago

lcds are great for gaming.
plasmas arent BETTER by any means.

_Q_5546d ago

Pit LCDs against plasmas every year guess who wins everytime?
You randomly posting with no reasoning except the fact that you may have an LCD doesnt make your reply credible.
LOL
You guys sometimes

Parapraxis5546d ago

I have the Sharp Aquos 42# listed at number 1, and it really is a beautiful TV.
Works perfect, fantastic set of features and many many inputs.
PS3, Surround Sound, Computer and at times a SNES & PS2 hooked up to it.

LCDs > Plasmas

Better quality picture, better refresh rate and not likely to have BURN IN, which if you play games on a plasma is VERY likely due to stationary HUDs in games.

Elimin85546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

It is a gr8 tv.. I have it too and Number 4

_Q_5546d ago

where do you guys get your info from? i got to see this.
Picture quality? LMAO- dont even need to address that...
LCD Macs had to put out higher refresh rate screens (120hz-240hz-480hz) just to catch up to Plasmas. Plasmas have always been faster and always will be.
Find me a credible site that says LCD are better than Plasmas in performance. People will only note that LCDs have an edge as safer(not performance) where burn in is an issue. I play games (WITH AND WITHOUT HUDS) everyday with no issue. viewing angle: Plasma Life span use to be a big issue where LCD had an edge. My Panny has a 100000hr est life span (longer than quite a few LCDs)

indysurfn5546d ago

Yeah you got the best one on that list. The number one got there because it had a good price for the quality. Ignoring price you got number one trust me. I have that model also. I I'm surfing the internet with it on my pc right now! And it looks BETTER than my monitor. I have not used my monitor since I plugged this up to play a movie from my pc on it. I decided to adjust the video card up and leave it. This rules big time! Did you play with the TV picture/music player yet? It will zoom better than your pc can.

Marceles5546d ago

I like my Bravia with the glass bezel better than the XBR6

http://img407.imageshack.us...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pr...

Plasmas are cool for watching TV, but in video games it sucks for n00bs if they dont know to turn on their screensaver and leave their game on pause for a long time. Everyone has their own preference though.

kharma455546d ago

Plasma > LCD every time, if you think otherwise I'm sorry, you're very wrong. LCD's are good if you're putting them in a room which gets a lot of sunlight as their screens aren't made of glass and hence there is little glare, but for PQ etc., plasma blows LCD out of the water.

Better blacks, better motion handling, better viewing angles, better colour reproduction, it has it all tbh. The Pioneer 9G is one of the best TV's I've ever seen, the PQ is just fantastic, blew my Panny PZ80 away for black level, and I was very impressed how good it was compared to the Bravia W4500 and Samsung 656 that I considered before opting for it.

As for you lot who think image retention happens with plasma, I do 3hr gaming sessions on my Panny when I have the PS3 hooked upto it, never seen a hint of IR. It really does piss me right off that people have these ideas in their heads of problems that hindered plasmas well over 5 YEARS AGO.

Technology has moved on, so should you lot.

boodybandit5546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

mine didn't even make the list.
I have a Samsung ln52850.
I love it!

I was going to purchase a Pioneer Kuro (which was actually cheaper) but I am leery of image retention and burn in. I know there are dvd's you can buy to break them in but I am too inpatient to use them. One thing that is nice about plasma sets is no input lag.

xwabbit5546d ago

Plasmas do look better than LCD but they get hotter faster... the new plasmas are changing tho. They don't get hot as fast as they use too.

Darkfocus5546d ago

If we're not agruing over consoles we're fighting over which TV is better. Can't we all just get along?

LCD FOR THE WIN!!!!!!! =D

thebudgetgamer5546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

is 720p good enough for games? 1080p is kind of out of my price range.

:) edit: know i dont never heard of it. i found a 32 in at target for 388$ thats the best deal i have found so far

xwabbit5546d ago

Don't u have a BrandSmart close to you ? They sell electronics REALLY cheap there.

theoneb5546d ago

I you plan to just watch TV on it then I could understand the LCD>Plasma argument. I have played and tested the best Samsung LCD vs any plasma. The only draw back to a plasma is the burn in which isnt an issue with new sets. Alot of new models have anti burn in tech built into the tv.

The #1 reason Plasmas crush LCDs is the Alliasing that the LCD technology creates. Its great for Text I.E. a computer monitor but sucks for fast moving games. Its almost as if you cant turn down the sharpness low enough. Try it for yourself and see what Im talking about.

And for the record old CRTHD tvs crush plasma and LCD as far as picture quality. The problem with them is a HD CRT is very heavy And dont go over 35-40". People forget thet you are just paying for the ability to hang it on the wall

Sanzee5546d ago (Edited 5546d ago )

Stats below taken from plasmatvbuyingguide.com

Computer Use » LCD
Console Use » Plasma
Performance » Plasma
Power Usage » LCD
Picture Quality » Plasma
Resolution » -Tie- (depends on TV size)
Screen Burn-in » LCD
Video Playback » Plasma
Longetivity » -Tie- (depends on manufacturer)
Production Cost » Plasma
Price (to Buy) » -Tie-
Altitude » LCD

TOTAL
- LCD................ 4
- Plasma........... 5
- Ties................ 3

WINNER: PLASMA TV

silky5545d ago

PLASMAtvbuyingguide.com is hardly gonna come up with a LCD winning result!

kharma455545d ago

The Kuro plasma is amazing, the PQ off it is second-to-none, no other TV out there at the minute can match it IMO.

Rhythmattic5545d ago

@ Sanzee.

"ower Usage » LCD" (Power Consumption)

Just so you know its not Always the Case . People forget LCD's Always require a Backlight, otherwise you wouldnt see a see the Picture, As Plasma's Only Light the Pixels (at varied Brightness) that need to be displayed.

What this Mean?

If you were to leave on the equivalent sized LCD/Plasma screen on for a period of a year and displayed video material that:-

was complete black = Plasma more efficient than LCD.

Was complete White = LCD more efficient than LCD.

Now we know thats not what we we use our screens for, we play games , watch movies and television. All these Pictures Are dynamic.

Blacks/whites/colours...all with relationship to Brightness and Contrast.

An example.

I own the Panasonic TH-50PZ850U on this list, $50.98 running cost for a Year.

Now compare this to a Sony KDL-46XBR4 at an Zverage running cost of $79.53 a year. And its not even a 50", but a 46" LCD.

http://reviews.cnet.com/452...

However, Plasma's arent always cheaper to run, the purpose of this email is to let people know the guy behind the counter, selling you the latest, greatest tech doesn't particularly know the Facts.

Back on the Main topic.

I Just dont get it. Many an LCD owner here says "Plasma's are Good for Movies, Not Games".
Personally I dont Understand this Philosophy. Plasma's best attributes are displaying FAST motion especially on lager screens, Say 42" Up.

Panasonic makes both LCD and Plasma's , and recomend Plasma's for the two points made above.

Can Sony ? Do they make Plasma's ? Nope....

I compared many 46"-50" Screens , Both LCD and Plasma. And the only way, and LCD came close was by all the new models upping the Refresh Rate. I've got to Admit, its on par with plasma, no wash.... Nice. But try using that mode for gaming... Input lag hell....

Put it in game mode and you've lost what makes the new LCD's comparable to Plasma's.

My Point ? The New Refresh rate LCD's on the Market are really good for movies. .

Hopefullly the Plasma myth has been dispelled.

Remember. The Internet is your friend.

And to get you started, if your interested, a great site with real end users. No Salesmen here.

http://www.dtvforum.info/

(PS. Burn in - Smirn in)

kharma455545d ago

Bubbles for you Rhythmattic

Darth Gamer5545d ago

I absolutely love my Samsung 52 inch. No lag what so ever and the colors are beautiful. I recommend this set to everyone.

Rhythmattic5545d ago

I meant to Say..

"Was complete White = LCD more efficient than Plasma."

However, I'm sure you get the gist....

IdleLeeSiuLung5545d ago

There is one undeniable fact with Plasma that cannot match LCD, it is resolution. Plasma doesn't have the full horizontal resolution of 1080p i.e. 1920. In fact, it only has half the resolution with an odd shaped pixel i.e. rectangular. The horizontal resolution of Plasma is 1024 I believe. That is a significant reduction and suddenly 1080p on Plasma is actually only 3 times as detailed as regular SD, 480p.

Most wouldn't notice this because color is more visible to the viewer. Plasma therefore looks better to most, but it has one additional glaring problem and that is glare from the glass. I can't stand it and therefore am buying LCDs only. It is like those stupid Laptops that people buy that come with the glare screens. They aren't practical, but hey it is shiny! People like bling bling.....

kharma455545d ago (Edited 5545d ago )

What the hell are you talking about plasmas not having full resolution? What have you been reading?

My Panny PZ80 is 1920 x 1080 for example.

http://www.panasonic.co.uk/...

Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Rhythmattic5545d ago (Edited 5545d ago )

IdleLeeSiuLung

There is one undeniable fact with LCD that cannot match Plasma, Contrast.

I hate Back lights.

And Yes, Glare on SOME plasma's suck...
Like those bloody Laptop Media PC's that you literally see yourself and not your OS... Arrgghh, I'm with ya...

But not all. There is good and bad anti glare designs..

One thing to point out however, these computers are not using Plasma Screens, but LCD's.

So its not because its Plasma, nor LCD. Its the antiglare finish.

Unfortunately here is where the problem Lie's, nothing but Glass (as a Protector) will do a Plasma's contrast Justice. Even LCD's with the good antiglare glass look sharper and brighter than the matte type finish designs.

I'll only ever buy LCD's for Computing Tasks.

Oh, and the Horizontal lines on my Panny 50" Fill HD Plasma is 1920 pixels, which makes your "i Believe" statement of it being only 1024 pixels fiction. Unless you have a link?

PS. But the one to kill then all ... OLED.... Yummy....

superflyguy5545d ago

I thought the best HDTVs for gaming were plasmas because of their true high contrast ratios and not the dynamic contrast ratios.

40cal5545d ago

I love my screen, every time someone comes to my house they comment on the picture quality.

SaiyanFury5545d ago

I'm kinda surprised, it's like they completely forgot about DLP TVs. My 61" 1080p Samsung serves me very well and has great contrast ratio. Very sharp and the colours are wonderful as well. Mine does me just fine and cost me half of what a comparably sized plasma or LCD would have.

+ Show (27) more repliesLast reply 5545d ago
ChozenWoan5546d ago

I recently went TV shopping (just before KZ2 day) and the top TV to get is the Vizio. A 32" Vizio with 1080p native res is a steal at around $450-500. Compared to the ones in this article which tend to start out at around $650 for a 32", and then goes up quickly from there.

I'm not a big budget gamer, but I had to have 1080p. So I got a Vizio as it was the most reasonably priced TV with all of the specs I required. Now I've got my comp and PS3 working side by side using PIP and life just seems so much better now. :)

LeonSKennedy4Life5546d ago

Vizios are definitely the best priced HDTV's. They just aren't the best quality.

indysurfn5546d ago

yeah it is a discount brand. But it has Sony parts (say a sales man). Every where that I compared the Vizio motion to a Sony motion the Vizio stomped it and every sales person said the same. Find one side by side and watch a fast moving sequence on them. You may have to stay a while for them to repeat but it is worth it. Save that money for a few extra games is okay. But I ended up getting the Samsung a650 everyone is talking about. It rules them all (just not on price).

IKillThesePunks5545d ago

The truth is if you left a LCD and a Plasma on for a full year the plasma would use more electricity. Plasmas have a higher burn in rate. New LCDs are going LED back lit. The picture on a LCD is sharper, and on the new ones it is brighter, and since they are going LED. They can shut the light all the way off to hit a perfect black level.

IdleLeeSiuLung5545d ago (Edited 5545d ago )

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised as I just bought a Vizio 32" VW32L on sale for $380. It is 720p, but for gaming it is perfect as most games natively run at 720p or lower. Higher resolution would force the console (i.e. 360) or the TV (i.e. PS3) to scale. TV's generally has a terrible scaler.

Anyhow, the Vizio had excellent picture quality compared to my Sony and almost on par. I noticed the Sony had more vibrant colors, but it certainly wasn't worth an extra 50-80% extra cost. Input lag, I have not noticed any, but some are more sensitive to it that others.

By the way, I always turn off all the extra "supposed picture improvement features" because they all tend to degrade the picture rather than help. This applied to both the Sony and the Sharp AQUOS I had. Don't buy into the hype. With the money I saved, about $200-300 for the Vizio, which probably will be the cost of a Sony 32" in 1-2 years!!!

The Vizio had one major problem, it appeared cheap on both the remote and the crappy menu system. In addition, it has a poor reliability problem (from what I hear). The bright side, most TV's has a zero bright pixel defect warranty!!!

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5545d ago
acdata5546d ago

i have samsung la-46a950d1r i think this the best LCD TV exist in the market

joydestroy5546d ago

i'd def like to compare the a650 and a950 series side by side and see if the difference in DCR actually warrants paying the ridiculous price difference.

because i bet it won't.

GiantEnemyFlop5546d ago

Sharp Regraz is really good in term in picture q. and price

i have one and it's better than my friend 42 sumsong

Show all comments (144)
150°

New and improved ASUS ROG Ally X battery life is just what it needs to compete with the Steam Deck

Yet another leak for the ASUS ROG Ally X points towards as much as 8 hours of battery, but how does that compare to the competition?

Vits2d ago

Honestly, I really like this updated version. But it doesn't solve the biggest flaw that the original had for me: the Z1 Extreme APU. Yes, it's an extremely powerful part, but it is not part of AMD's Adrenalin driver update program, so it's dependent on Asus for driver updates. And unfortunately, Asus doesn't have a stellar record of support for their devices.

Goodguy012d ago

Up to 8 hours basically just means the least demanding games. AAA gaming at highest wattage would probably be about 2-3 hours which is good compared to just about 1 hour with the current ally. The OLED Deck can do about 2-3hrs.

Killa7811h ago

Too bad Asus are all awful company.

PRIMORDUS7h ago

They used to be the best when it comes to motherboards, now I will never buy anything from them again.

Firebird3609h ago

8 hrs yea right. Running tetris?

Skuletor7h ago

Only after setting the screen brightness to the lowest level, of course.

Asuka8h ago

Nope. The only improvements I want to hear is better customer support. Otherwise, I can't be bothered.

Show all comments (13)
60°

Best GPU for Homeworld 3 - top picks & reviews

Jack writes: "Our guide to the best GPUs for Homeworld 3 talks you through some of today's best options from Nvidia, AMD, and Intel - for various budgets."

Michiel19893d ago

opinion piece? it's an advertisement and these articles shouldn't be here.
Advertisement on top of advertisements

90°

Two Decades Later, the Original Splinter Cell is Still a Masterpiece

They don't make games like this anymore.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
vgvill3d ago

Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.

Jingsing3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Agreed with those sentiments. The quality of the CPU controlled characters make or break a stealth game and they are pretty poor in all the Splinter Cell games by today's standard. This is what led me to playing Spies vs Mercs all the time in later games just to get a better stealth experience from a real person. Arguably Sony are making better stealth games albeit not Tom Clancy stuff.

TheProfessional3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

You should stick with fortnite or one of the countless bloodborne style games then. What a joke.

rlow13d ago

I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.

vgvill3d ago

They are making a remake, I think. I loved the original game when it was released, but I tried to play it again in recent years and just couldn't get on with it. The same with the older Hitman games.

PrecursorOrb3d ago

Yeah chaos theory still holds up though I gotta say. If you’re a fan of the series I highly suggest you go back to that one. Ubi has said they are remaking sc for “modern audiences”. I don’t have a lot of faith for the future of that company

Chocoburger3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.

Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!