[Filligree]

There’s a pretty big difference between them technically, mostly the latency of the display chain. TVs can have signal input to picture on screen latencies of dozens of milliseconds, whereas a monitor would be considered defective if it was more than one frame.

This only matters for interactive content, but it’s where a lot of the price difference comes from.

[jasomill]

Most TVs have a "game mode" that reduces latency to a single frame time, give or take a few milliseconds[1]. Not as good as the best monitors, but close, and certainly not dozens of milliseconds.

[1] https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

[wegfawefgawefg]

Only recently have low latency screens been the default expectation for flat panel computer displays. (I know the crt's were really fast) For most of my life most flat panel computer displays were high latency. Me and my gamer buds have always had to check we were buying a screen with sub whatever ms latency. Nowadays though they are pretty much all fast like that.

This applies to the tvs too. Most of them have a low latency mode. Mine has it. I use it all the time.

Anyways, point is the uneducated consumer can't tell the difference between them, and me the well educated consumer also can't tell the difference, and they come with all the same features, so people just call the big ones tvs, and the small ones screens. (Except the smart tv stuff)