Recommended 4K TVs That Can Effectively Be Used As Desktop PC Monitors

TCL’s offering also supports 4:4:4 chroma when running at 4K @ 60Hz

Its spec says 4K @ 120Hz. If that's true, then it has no competition in its price range.

In general, TV-s with 120Hz refresh rate or higher are much better as monitors.
 
TCL’s offering also supports 4:4:4 chroma when running at 4K @ 60Hz

Its spec says 4K @ 120Hz. If that's true, then it has no competition in its price range.

In general, TV-s with 120Hz refresh rate or higher are much better as monitors.
I doubt it's true, a lot of manufacturers claim silly things like "240Hz" when actually, it's just Backlight scanning and other trickery (LG TruMotion, Panasonic Backlight Scanning technology, Samsung CMR, Sharp AquoMotion, Sony MotionFlow to name a few) to effectively remove motion Blur.
The TV's themselves don't accept higher than 60Hz inputs (well some do but they're usually expensive sets).
 
I am using a 32'' Samsung TV as a monitor for over 5 years. It's not ultra fast for games, but it was one of the "fast" enough TVs in the market. Also it's colors are much better than any TN monitor could provide and price was a joke compared to any IPS of the same size back then. It does offer of course the choice of changing an HDMI to a PC port mode, for clear image, having the VGA port as a secondary option if needed to connect a second PC on the TV and still have a clear picture.
When there are 4K TVs with FreeSync over HDMI in the market, I will do my upgrade.
 
I have the 65 inch version of the authors Samsung, it's been great and you can find them at Walmarts for $8-900 often enough. The MSRP is $1300 but that's just because I think they want you to buy it. Most of the time it's listed for $1000-1150
 
I'm using a 55" LG 4K TV (UJ651V) with my PC right now.

Great for gaming and media but rather large and because of size mounted on the wall which somewhat inhibits the desktop experience.

I use my aging AOC 1080p 27" monitor for everything else.
 
I got a 40" 4K KU6290 a year and a half ago which was cheaper than the KU6300 ($300 total) and haven't looked back - it's basically the KU6300 without bluetooth audio. Works perfectly. I'd want a TV that does great HDR, not just support it like the xU6xxx serires, but nobody gives us that at 40", only 49" and bigger. Until that time, a 40" 4K TV with 4:4:4 support that goes for around $300 is hands down the best monitor option for non competitive gamers. I plan on keeping mine until I can get a TV that displays 1000nit HDR at 40".

Also, I'd suggest not using Amazon ratings as an indicator, as most people use these as TVs and not monitors. You should point people towards Rtings, where they have reviews on all these TVs and comment on the suitability of being used as monitors with proper analytic numbers.
 
I don't own 4K only my cell phone LOL. But I've been using both SONY 46-inch and 40-inch as PC Monitor and as streaming Monitors and HDTV OTA.. No issues and default factory settings. I am looking for SONY 75-inch to replace the 46-inch which would replace the 40-inch I am on now typing this. I am not interested in other brands. Funny no one selling SONY except for high price Best Buy.. How is it suppose to to be a best buy if the prices are too high. Anyway my vote and support goes to SONY keep up the great work there, no issues with your LCD HDTV showing Full HD 1080i/1080p brilliant vivid colors..

I also have some off brands too Element 32-inch DCC of 10,000 which with it's glossy panel does show some vivid colors and deep blacks. with SONY SNP 200 Network Media Player It's the only set next to Toshiba LED 23-inch in my Kitchen Mounted on the cabinet over the stove is the personal kitchen set with Chrome Cast and SONY SNP100 Network Media Player connect to it. Both have OTA Guide and nfo display. OTA Guides are rare. SONY doesn't have the full guide only info of what is being shown on OTA. I have some other off brands as well DYNEX 26-inch with even darker DCC vivid colors.. It might have LG panel inside. Tuner changer is slow though. I got rid of VIZO models they were not good to my liking..

Toshiba was designed to work as monitor that it does. Element 32-inch is not true or full 1080p more like 720p when you connect a computer to the HDMI ports some goes for DYNEX gives me a warning feature not supported. Oh well..
 
Last edited:
I'll second LGs OLEDs. I've got the previous model (B6P), and once LG got its initial firmware hiccups taken care of has been solid as a monitor. Input lag is "good enough" even in 4k HDR mode; I wouldn't use it for competitive gaming but its good enough for multiplayer FPSs.

Samsung TVs (Especially the KS/KU/MU/NU lineups) also tend to be very solid PC monitors.
 
I am waiting for those G-Sync enabled TVs announced earlier this year... hope they won't be too expansive.....
 
I use my 50" Samsung 4K smart TV sometimes as a monitor for my Mac Pro but for everyday use I use a 28" Dell 4K monitor next to a 30" Monoprice 2560x1600 monotor with displayport. The HDR LG OLED TVs must be the best for viewing HDR 4K videos on youtube and Vimeo.
 
One of the problem of using a TV for a monitor is that the back side of these TVs are usually really ugly. Some of them will optimize for connector and cabling management, but even then they still look ugly as heck. This would be ok, if monitor is just have the back facing the wall, like most TV deployments are. However many monitors will be in the middle of a desk that instead has the user's back facing the wall, which means when you walk into he room, the first thing you see that ugly back with a mess of cables.
 
One of the problem of using a TV for a monitor is that the back side of these TVs are usually really ugly. Some of them will optimize for connector and cabling management, but even then they still look ugly as heck. This would be ok, if monitor is just have the back facing the wall, like most TV deployments are. However many monitors will be in the middle of a desk that instead has the user's back facing the wall, which means when you walk into he room, the first thing you see that ugly back with a mess of cables.

Wow, I have to say that's one of the silliest things to moan about I've ever heard...
 
When there are 4K TVs with FreeSync over HDMI in the market, I will do my upgrade.
Samsung's 2018 QLED lineup actually supports Variable Refresh Rate over HDMI 2.0 and the technology is baked into HDMI 2.1, which will probably be going mainstream this year. As far as I know, AMD cards support VRR, as will Xbox One S and X systems, but we're probably going to be waiting awhile before Nvidia follows suit.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I have to say that's one of the silliest things to moan about I've ever heard...

Why is it silly. When you have 40+ in display sitting in the middle of a office, workspace, etc. and you see it from all angles, the last thing you want to see is a mess of cables sticking out.

For example look at this 32" monitor?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L3KNOF4/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

Or this Dell 42" monitor:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01F80FSKS/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

Take a look at the back shot photo. Why do you think Samsung or Dell styled it the way they did?

Why do people stress cable management in a PC case? That gets seen even less, but nonetheless it is a big deal. The plumbing for custom water loops is all about the styling. It is not silly.
 
How deep are people's desks?! Or rather, how far away are people sitting from these things? I can't even being to imagine sitting up close to a screen anywhere 40" without twisting my neck all over the place constantly to look at the corners. Even 28" is bordering on too large to fit everything into a clear peripheral vision.
 
I am using a 32'' Samsung TV as a monitor for over 5 years. It's not ultra fast for games, but it was one of the "fast" enough TVs in the market. Also it's colors are much better than any TN monitor could provide and price was a joke compared to any IPS of the same size back then. It does offer of course the choice of changing an HDMI to a PC port mode, for clear image, having the VGA port as a secondary option if needed to connect a second PC on the TV and still have a clear picture.
When there are 4K TVs with FreeSync over HDMI in the market, I will do my upgrade.

Same here a UN32EH5000FXZA. As you say it's been way better than most monitors selling at the time. After almost 6 years though I would like to upgrade to a freesync 144hz WQHD monitor soon.
 
How deep are people's desks?! Or rather, how far away are people sitting from these things? I can't even being to imagine sitting up close to a screen anywhere 40" without twisting my neck all over the place constantly to look at the corners. Even 28" is bordering on too large to fit everything into a clear peripheral vision.

I use a 27" monitor right now. It is sitting about 3 feet away measure from the front of my eyes to the screen surface. I don't think many people would be sitting closer than that. And when I am using my 15" laptop, it is about 1 arm lengths away for about 24" (I am not Shaq or an NBA center) , so I would say we probably sit at a fairly normal distance from the screen. In any case, I don't see it blocking the peripheral vision or even getting close to peripheral vision. It is more like tunnel vision for a 27" at normal sitting distance. I would like an affordable 40" G-sync 144hz monitor and a video card that can actually affordably drive that at more than 60fps. That is why I am still at a 1440p 27".
 
I don't think serious Photoshop users would consider that to be calibrating. I certainly don't.

I calibrate my monitor with one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/spyder-monitor-calibration/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=I:aps,k:spyder monitor calibration&tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

Will it work on a TV screen?

Well you did not specify that you want to calibrate for printing, and you wanted color accuracy to match printed material. That what those color calibration devices are meant for. These calibration tools do not actually make the picture on the monitor display look better for games, movies, or video.

There was a time when I worked for printer controller company, we had to code up driver software for those controllers, provide built-in calibration APIs to integrate with those tools and generate the ICC profiles for printer and monitor. And you better hope there is some troll at work that goes and changes the brightness, contrast, or gamma on the monitor in middle of you validation testing.

There is no reason why a TV LCD panel cannot be calibrated by the same tools, but TV LCD/OLED/etc. panels on the other hand was not created for color accuracy for professional print either, and you will likely be unhappy with the results.There is a reason profession monitors for production are ridiculously expensive partly because of the stringent color accuracy requirements.
 
Last edited:
I don't think serious Photoshop users would consider that to be calibrating. I certainly don't.

I calibrate my monitor with one of these:
https://www.amazon.com/spyder-monitor-calibration/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=I:aps,k:spyder monitor calibration&tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

Will it work on a TV screen?

Well you did not specify that you want to calibrate for printing, and you wanted color accuracy to match printed material. That what those color calibration devices are meant for. These calibration tools do not actually make the picture on the monitor display look better for games, movies, or video.

There was a time when I worked for printer controller company, we had to code up driver software for those controllers, provide built-in calibration APIs to integrate with those tools and generate the ICC profiles for printer and monitor. And you better hope there is some troll at work that goes and changes the brightness, contrast, or gamma on the monitor in middle of you validation testing.

There is no reason why a TV LCD panel cannot be calibrated by the same tools, but TV LCD/OLED/etc. panels on the other hand was not created for color accuracy for professional print either, and you will likely be unhappy with the results.There is a reason profession monitors for production are ridiculously expensive partly because of the stringent color accuracy requirements.
All of which is why distinctions must be drawn. A TV might or might not be a good/better substitute for a conventional monitor. It depends on what you use it for. If you're just going to surf the Internet or pound M&Ms while gaming, that's one thing. A TV might be just fine. But if you're going to be editing digital images, then a TV might not be so fine. It depends on whether, and how, it can be calibrated.

So don't get all huffy. Different people use monitors for different purposes. The standards for those different purpose vary significantly. Gaming is not photo editing, and vice versa.
 
Back