Will it be just as clear as a 4K Monitor though?
Typically, TVs do not make very great monitors. Between refresh rate, response time, scaling, etc - it usually makes up for a less than desirable experience, however, as a second monitor, it'll do the job for basic stuff such as web browsing, watching videos, etc.
I would not consider gaming or editing on a TV. For day trading, it should work just fine.
Thanks for the reply bud. Gotcha!!
"refresh rate" is unlikely to get any better than 60Hz. Response time can often be as good as a 60Hz monitor by using "game mode" (my TV automatically enters "game mode" when I set my computer as input). Scaling is a non-issue as long as your GPU (and HDMI interface, that is often the key) can deliver 4k@60Hz.
For gaming, a 43" screen is incredible in ways that high refresh rate and extreme high dot pitch (4k on a <30" screen) can't match.
For desktop use, a 43" screen often acts much more having the screen space of multiple monitors without having limits of multiple monitors. Meaning that you probably aren't going to have any one window that is >40" across, but you don't have any restrictions where any of your various windows have to stay.
You can probably go higher than 43", but that means that your dot pitch will have to scale thanks to the 4k native resolution. Going lower than 43" is likely a specialty item where you would be better off just buying a "real monitor" (the ones that cost similar to my TV tend to suddenly drop down to 720 or so resolution at 32". Although if you can find such a TV it might be ideal).
no. bad idea
It wouldn't be for gaming, I would do it as a 2nd monitor since I day trade. How much blurrier is it than a 4K monitor?
They aren't blurry at all, although they tend to be no smaller than 43", so the actual dots aren't any smaller than a 21" 1080 monitor. I made a thread about my choice to buy a 4k TV for a monitor:
If I use a 4K TV with my laptop that is 1080, it'll look just like my laptop right? (My desktop has a 4K monitor)
TBH don't know where everyone is saying 4k TV is bad for gaming. Its actually not, at least on some modern high end TV's. I have a 100hz G-Sync panel with low response time, yet I can say, I actually have a much better experience on a 4k TV these days for gaming. It can be phenomenal if your not after the absolute lowest response time "elite" gamers are after.
Take a peek at LG's OLEDS or Samsung's high end QLEDs (which I use), input lag is respectable with game mode, yet the size and HDR absolutely crush anything a monitor can offer really. They even now have VRR with LG's supporting G-Sync and Samsung supporting VRR on some SKU's. Likewise some of these 4k panels like LG's OLEDS actually do 4k @120hz, combine that with G-Sync support, OLEDS contrast, HDR etc and 4k TV's can actually be pretty epic to game on. I only actually use my main rig when playing keyboard and mouse games now. Everything else is on my TV /HTPC rig.
For clarity, need to bare in mind a 4k TV and 4k monitor at like for like size will have the same pixel density. Difference here is TV's are usually larger though so the same amount of pixels are spread over a wider area so you have less pixel density. On a large enough panel may mean the lower pixel density is noticeable if you sit up close to say a 65" 4k TV vs a 27" 4k monitor.
In your case, given your just going to be at your desk and its a secondary monitor anyways, just grab a 4k monitor IMO.
Thanks for you opinion. Next year PS5 and the new Xbox consoles will be out. I'd love to see what they look like on 8K TV's
Of course there are going to be 4K TVs with decent enough hardware to give proper monitors a run for their money. But you've pointed it out yourself - high-end TVs.
The price of these TVs with actual 60+Hz refresh rates and adaptive sync will quite easily dwarf even a typical 9900K/3900X + 2080S/Ti build itself, which already runs past four significant figures on their own.
if you read some other responses, you will see people mention that gaming is a a bad idea on TV's price did not enter the equation which is what my comment was mostly in relation too. It seems to me IMO, people have out of date ideas on gaming and TV's as they have moved on significantly and you can get a solid experience with a TV. I am talking from a point in which I have pretty high end PC's paired with some of the fastest monitors around at one point or another yet can happily say, that experience on TV's for gaming is just as good, a bit in different area's.
Similarly while I say high end, its true, however its very much also on the downwards trend, depending on the model they do not all "easily dwarf" the typical builds you listed.
VRR for example can be had on TV's starting from £500 for 50+ inchs such as Samsung RU8000 series. Same TV can also do 120hz gaming, abit at 1440p So less then the price of a 2080s you mention here in the UK. and that is just the GPU. LG C9 OLED can be had for around £1100 mark for 55" which once again is a phenomenal gaming TV which mix's OLED, 120hz and G-Sync support, arguably the best TV around for gaming which comes in cheaper then plenty of 2080Ti models here in the UK. Expensive, sure, but well under the price you would pay for a typical 9900k / 3900x + high end GPU you mention.
So yeah, stand by my comments, can get a pretty amazing experience on TV's for gaming and in some models / SKU's without breaking the bank compared to what a 2080Ti + high end CPU etc can come in at.
Similarly I have gamed on TV's without both those functions, and once again, found it to be pretty phenomenal when you ensure you correctly tweak the GPU to keep at 60 FPS lock. Actually what made me move up in the TV game rather then monitor game as experience on TV's can be down right astonishing, even compared with high end monitors.