TV's always seem like a cheaper yet bigger alternative to PC monitors, but do they suck at replacing dedicated PC monitors?
Well, the answer is far more in-depth than just a simple yes or no. TVs are significantly cheaper to the same spec PC monitor and there are a few good reasons for this.
PC monitors usually have a higher pixel density, which means the pixels are much closer togther than what you'll find in most TV's. This, in turn, give you a sharper image at a close viewing distance.
But, in terms of gaming and watching films, there will hardly be any notable change. The problem comes in when you are reading text.
TVs use a higher compressed chroma subsampling system called 4:2:0 or, in some cases, a ratio of 4:2:2 which compresses video by means of reducing unnecessary colour information by every 4 x 2 row of pixels.
Chroma subsampling has its place in TV's as, from a distance, you still get a high contrast and sharp image that is able to stream in 4K without buffering. But, if you read text up close, you'll notice artefacts such as colour fringing.
PC monitors, on the other hand, don't use colour sampling and have a ratio of 4:4:4, which eliminates fringing, making text and other information perfectly readable up close.
Take a look at the video below by YouTube channel, Tech Quickie, on Do TV's suck as PC monitors?