60 Hz lcd have terrible dinamic resolution. The only true 1080p displays are the 240Hz LCD(and LED) and the 600Hz plasmas. So, even with 1080p source and a 60hz 1080p lcd you most likely watch 350p in practice, and using a 720p lcd you have the same dinamic resolutionas using a 1080p, for 60hz lcd there isn't much why get a full hd unless the difference of price is pretty minimal.

Look this site test(much better than cnet)

www.hdtvtest.co.uk

Hmmmm....

I didn't know that either, but that isn't why I didn't list the X360. It only takes 1 example to counter a universal statement and I knew the PS3 fit the bill.

1080p looks better than 720p when viewing from a normal living room distance, there articles are jibberish.

thank goodness my t.v supports 1080. im really not ready to buy another
btw all your points are wrong.
there is a difference.
tv is 1080
consoles play 1080
there is a difference.

yeah that's right now.in the next two years new consoles are gonna be released with with perfect 1080p or even more than that and slowly all the TV broadcast will be 1080p or more than that.what are u going to do then,buy a new tv?

its best to take the 1080p and u don't have to worry for the next 5 years

I have had this argument with friends and family many times. 1080p vs 720p. I personally can easily see the difference between 1080p and 720p, whether it is on a 60hz, 120hz, or 240 hz TV it makes not difference, I can still tell the difference. I also tell the difference during very heavy actions scenes between all of the above hertz ratings. During regular scenes in a movie, there is not a noticeable difference between 120hz and 240hz for me. Every person is different in what they see and hear.
My sister, back in the day, could not tell the difference between a properly connected (component) DVD movie and a movie on VCR hooked up with a coax connection.

It all depends on the person and their attention to detail. Most people will see a difference between 720p and 1080p on anything larger than a 27 inch wide screen TV. The average consumer will also not be able to see the difference between 5,000:1 and 30,000:1  contrast ratio in a non LED LCD TV. They also will not see a difference between 60hz, 120hz or 240hz unless it is blatently advertised to have a better refresh rate. To most consumers the HZ and contrast ratio are just bells and whistles and technical jargon. That is why they are still able to sell boat loads of 40inch 1080p LCD with 3,000:1 native contrast ratio running at 60hz.

old news. and who buys smaller than 37" these days? I love my 37xbr6 @1080p but I use it as a primary monitor for my home theater PC. For computer use 1080p is a must. I apply all videos, games , etc at 720p and agree the difference is mininal, if any, for moving content.

People coming to this thread: Don't take the information you read here as fact!!! 90% of what I've read here does not make any sense!

I will say one thing: If I'm buying a smaller than 52 inch TV, Why would I buy a 720p one? I could just buy a great 1080p TV and bring the resolution down to 720.v

This is complete nonsense, the source material is generally 24fps for Bu-ray and at best 60Hz for anything else. A 240Hz display will either repeat each frame, in which case it doesn't make any difference or add interpolated frames in which case you are certainly not adding resolution but will add lag to games or make it look fake and rubbish for movies. The main thing to benefit from 1080p is a big enough screen and to sit close enough. The refresh rate has nothing to do with resolution, what you are probably thinking about is motion blur caused by the displays reponse time and the  sample and hold method. For movies in particular some blur is in the source material itself. One way some displays can get around this is to insert darkened frames, but this is at the expense of much reduced brightness and contrast and flicker is often visible.