LG 48C6 OLED48C6PUA evo AI C6 4K Smart TV 2026

[elvn]

I know not everyone is cut throat about a missed shot or being outdrawn gunshot timing wise in an online game every so often, but for a sense of completion I did a little more homework on that topic, since people bring up very competitive players who play simple to render games at 300fps to 500fps.

There is more to it, about running 300 to 500 fps on competitive games.

TLDR: 165hz still gives you advantage if running some easy to render competitive game at 300 - 500fps, in making sure you can react on the most current tick without missing it. The con is that it will show tearing as g-sync/v-sync are not active to cut that off to ~ 160fps in that scenario, where if you were running 300fps on a 360hz screen, or 500fps on a 500Hz+ screen, you wouldn't get tearing because you wouldn't be exceeding the peak Hz of the screen.


===========================================

. .

The 72ms minimum temporal gap on 128 tick servers , vs running extreme frame rate:

"Even when running at 300 to 500 FPS, you are still playing inside a base ~72ms temporal gap caused by the combined forces of your network ping, server tick processing, and engine translation delays.
When you look at an enemy on your screen, you are not seeing where they are right now on the server; you are looking roughly 72ms into the past. However, generating new frames every 2 to 3 milliseconds remains highly advantageous because it optimizes how you interact with that specific 72ms window."

.

"Beating the 7.81ms Server Cutoff: When you click your mouse to shoot, your PC must package that input and send it to the server. If you run a flat 128 FPS, input sampling delays can add up to 7.81ms of extra local lag, potentially pushing your shot into a later server tick. At 500 FPS, that local lag drops to 2ms, giving your packet the speed it needs to slip into the earliest possible server tick "

.

"Impact on Server Time Rewinding (Lag Compensation)
When your shot packet finally arrives at the server, the server acknowledges the 72ms gap. It looks at your packet's exact timestamp, says "This player is playing 72ms in the past," and rewinds its simulation clock by exactly 72ms to see if your crosshair was on the enemy.
Because you were running at 500 FPS, the version of the past you reacted to was captured with absolute fidelity. The server rewinds its clock and finds that your ultra-fresh, 2ms-sampled input aligns perfectly with the historical record of the enemy's hitbox. Running high frame rates ensures that your local reality matches the server's authoritative rollback, giving you perfect hit registration despite the base 72ms delay.

Click to expand...

. .

"
The 300 to 500 FPS advantage absolutely still happens on a 165Hz monitor:

Even though your monitor can only physically display 165 images per second, your game engine and your graphics card are working together much faster.

Why High FPS Helps on a 165Hz Monitor

• Input lag drops drastically: Your mouse inputs are tied to your framerate, not your monitor's refresh rate.
• Fresher frames for the display: At 500 FPS, your GPU renders 3 frames for every single 165Hz monitor refresh.
• Newest data wins: When the monitor is ready to show a new image, it grabs the most recently completed frame, reducing visual delay.
• Server packets stay fast: Your PC continues sending your actions to the server at that ultra-fast 2 to 3 millisecond pace
• (note: the server relationship to you still has a 72ms temporal gap due to the 128tick rate, the extreme fps just assures that your action will arrive on the "current" tick instead of missing one. Especially on very high Hz screen -> Anything you react to or aim at -after- the current tick lands, before the next tick does, will be operating on frames your local client is predicting/interpolating that do not necessarily correspond to the server's next tick/scene action state (aka: "the visual lie").

"
.
The Subtick Exception (CS2)
If you are playing Counter-Strike 2, Valve’s subtick system operates slightly differently, but still rewards high FPS.

• CS2 logs the exact millisecond of your click between ticks, regardless of framerate.
• However, higher FPS means the engine samples your mouse position more frequently.
• High FPS ensures your crosshair is physically on the enemy's hitbox at the exact millisecond the subtick registers.

CS2 Tick Rate Explained: Effect on Gameplay, Sub-Tick, and More


. .

Tearing
"The only downside to running 500 FPS on a 165Hz screen is screen tearing, which happens because the GPU is feeding the monitor multiple frames during a single refresh cycle. However, most competitive players gladly accept minor tearing in exchange for the massive drop in input lag and the advantage of landing on earlier server ticks. "

. .

Reflex Option

How Reflex Enhances the 500 FPS Server Advantage
When you run at 500 FPS, you want your mouse clicks sampled every 2ms so they can beat the 7.81ms server tick cutoff. Reflex ensures this happens perfectly via two main mechanisms:

• Eliminates Local "Input Stale Time": Without Reflex, your CPU might pull your mouse data and then let it sit in a rendering queue for 3ms before the GPU draws the frame. By the time that frame finishes and the packet is sent, your input is already "stale." Reflex forces the CPU to sample your mouse click at the absolute last microsecond before the GPU renders, making the timestamp sent to the server as fresh as possible.
• Flattens Frame Time Spikes (Jitter): On a 128-tick server, consistency is everything. If your frame times wildly bounce between 2ms and 6ms (frame jitter), your packets will arrive at irregular intervals, occasionally missing the server's tick cutoff. Reflex stabilizes frame pacing, ensuring a rock-solid 2ms heartbeat for your input pipeline.

The Ultimate Combined Timeline
When you combine 500 FPS + Reflex ON + 128-Tick Server, your pipeline operates at peak competitive efficiency:

1. [Physical Click] ──► Captured instantly by CPU (0ms queue delay thanks to Reflex)
2. [Local Frame] ──► Rendered in a crisp 2.0ms (500 FPS)
3. [Network Packet] ──► Dispatched immediately with a hyper-accurate timestamp
4. [Server Cutoff] ──► Easily beats the 7.81ms tick window due to zero local lag
5. [Time Rewind] ──► Server rewinds the 72ms base gap and finds perfect alignment

The Only Exception to Watch Out For
Reflex will only protect your 500 FPS advantage if you keep your framerate completely uncapped (or capped manually at a massive number like 500 in the game's console).
If you accidentally turn on G-Sync alongside Reflex without an uncapped setting, Reflex will automatically pull your framerate down to 158 FPS to match your 165Hz monitor. If that happens, your frame times drop from 2ms to 6.3ms, which will slightly degrade the ultra-fast server packet delivery advantage you are aiming for.

Click to expand...

.

Proof from Tech Reviewers (The Latency Data)
Independent labs like Blur Busters and Tom's Hardware have benchmarked these exact scenarios using hardware latency analyzers. Their data proves that when you leave your FPS completely uncapped, turning Reflex ON drops total end-to-end system latency across the board compared to leaving Reflex OFF

-----------------------

What you would suffer if you capped the 300 to 500fps rate in order to prevent tearing on a 165Hz screen :

Enabling G-Sync and Reflex caps to eliminate screen tearing increases your input latency by roughly 4.3 milliseconds and doubles your risk of a missed server tick entry.
Here is the exact breakdown of the delays and tick penalties you suffer when dropping from 500 FPS uncapped to a ~158 FPS cap on a 165Hz screen.

1. The Input Latency Penalty (+4.33ms)
Input latency is the time between physical mouse movement and the game engine processing that movement.

• At 500 FPS Uncapped: The engine generates a frame every 2.00 milliseconds. Your input is never more than 2.00ms old when a frame is built.
• At 158 FPS Capped: The engine is slowed down to match your monitor, generating a frame every 6.33 milliseconds.
• The Harm: You add an automatic mathematical delay of 4.33ms to every single action you take before it even leaves your computer.

2. Missed Server Tick Entries (The Registration Delay)
Online servers look for player data at fixed intervals called "ticks."

• On a 128-Tick Server (Valorant, CS2 Premier): The server updates every 7.81 milliseconds.
• On a 64-Tick Server (Apex Legends, Matchmaking): The server updates every 15.62 milliseconds.

Because your computer and the game server are not perfectly synchronized, their schedules overlap randomly.

500 FPS Engine: [2ms][2ms][2ms][2ms] <-- 4 chances to capture the absolute latest input
128-Tick Server: --------[7.81ms]--------
158 FPS Engine: [ 6.33ms ][ 6.33ms ] <-- Only 1 chance; input is older

• The 500 FPS Advantage: At 2ms per frame, your PC inputs data roughly 4 times during a single 128-tick server cycle. The packet sent to the server contains an input that is practically brand new.
• The 158 FPS Penalty: At 6.33ms per frame, your PC only inputs data once per server tick. If your mouse click happens right after a frame is captured, it must wait nearly a full 6.33ms for the next frame, causing it to miss the current server tick entirely. Your action is delayed to the next packet, adding up to 14+ milliseconds of total delay before the server registers your shot.

Is the Harm Noticeable?

Metric	500 FPS Uncapped	158 FPS Capped (No Tearing)	The Penalty
Frame Time / Local Input Lag	2.00ms	6.33ms	+4.33ms slower
Inputs Per 128-Tick Cycle	~4 inputs	~1 input	3 missed optimization windows
Max Potential Server Delay	Very Low (High precision)	Moderate (Higher risk of desync)	Missed tick registration

In high-stakes tactical shooters, this 4.3ms to 14ms variance is the difference between your bullet registering first or the enemy killing you around a corner.

 

[elvn]

I wanted to know more about 300 - 500 fps running on a 165hz screen for online games.

According to what I looked up :


"

At 500 FPS, screen tearing on a 165Hz OLED TV is virtually invisible to the naked eye, meaning it will not noticeably harm your performance compared to playing on a 500Hz OLED display.
While a 500Hz OLED still provides a concrete, measurable edge in motion clarity and system latency, the high frame rate alters how tearing behaves on the 165Hz display, rendering the artifact negligible.

---

1. Visibility of Screen Tearing at 500 FPS
Screen tearing occurs when your GPU sends a new frame to the display mid-refresh, splitting the screen between old and new frame data. At an uncapped 500 FPS, the spatial footprint of this artifact changes drastically:

• Microscopic Splits: Because the GPU generates a new frame every 2 milliseconds (1000ms / 500fps), the physical layout change between consecutive frames is tiny.
• Stacked Tear Lines: A 165Hz monitor takes roughly 6.06 milliseconds to scan the display from top to bottom (1000ms / 165Hz). Since 500 / 165 ≈ 3.03, the GPU injects exactly 3 different frames into a single scan cycle.
• The OLED Sharpness Factor: Premium OLED panels feature instant pixel response times (~0.03ms). This lacks the natural ghosting/blur of older displays that used to smear tear lines. However, because the step-difference between your 2ms frames is so small, you won't see a harsh, jagged "crack." Instead, it registers as a subtle, faint jitter that most players do not perceive during fast-paced play.

2. Competitive Comparison: 165Hz vs. 500Hz
When both systems run Nvidia Reflex Uncapped, Reflex optimizes the CPU-to-GPU render pipeline to keep input lag at its absolute minimum. Despite having the same input latency, the 500Hz OLED holds clear advantages:

Competitive Metric	165Hz OLED @ 500 FPS	500Hz OLED @ 500 FPS	Winner & Competitive Impact
Input Latency	Ultra-low (Driven by 500 FPS + Reflex)	Ultra-low (Driven by 500 FPS + Reflex)	Tie. Input lag is dictated by engine framerate, not display refresh rate.
Visual Latency (Display Lag)	6.06 ms scanout cycle	2.00 ms scanout cycle	500Hz OLED. The 500Hz screen updates information* 4.06 ms faster visually. (Includes Local interpolated/faked/guessed frames past 128fpsHz vs 128 tick)
Motion Blur (Clarity)	Minor persistence blur (sample-and-hold)	Near-zero persistence blur	500Hz OLED. Objects tracking* across the screen remain perfectly sharp. (*Includes Local interpolated/faked/guessed frames past 128fpsHz vs 128 tick)
Tearing Artifacts	3 thin, tightly spaced tear lines per scan	Perfect sync (1 frame per refresh cycle)	500Hz OLED. Zero tearing, though 165Hz tearing is barely perceptible.

3. The Core Bottleneck: Visual Tracking
The true competitive disparity between these two setups is motion clarity, not the distraction of screen tearing.
Because modern flat panels use a "sample-and-hold" tracking mechanism, an image stays static on the screen for the duration of the refresh cycle before shifting. On a 165Hz display, an enemy dashing across your screen will naturally trigger eye-tracking motion blur, causing the target to look slightly fuzzy. At 500Hz, the image updates fast enough to track human eye movements, keeping the enemy target perfectly crisp and enabling faster tracking adjustment.

"

=============

Caveats:

- anything above 128fps / 128tick rate is going to be predicted interpolated frames on your local machine until the next tick arrives. So your faster screen updates will be a "visual lie", ~ faked frames (or best guesses anyway), until the next tick arrives, correcting as necessary, though you may be less likely to miss a new tick frame being drawn "on time" with your faster screen draw (ticks arriving mid-frame draw can be delayed a frame)..

- the object tracking and lower FoV movement blur will be interpolated frames part of the time, throughout, which may be coloring outside of the lines a bit vs what is actually happening in the next server tick when it arrives.

- input latency remains the same, since the mouse input goes by your frame rate not your screen Hz. (The "Tie") at the top of that table. Also, your temporal gap to the server is minimized at ~72 ms min on a 128tick server, as long as 128fps is your minimum frame rate (160fps or higher for .1% lows to be at 128fpsHz).


Takeaways:

- persistence blur reduction would definitely be nice, but it's not the "real" server-tick frames all of the time so the competitive advantage is questionable. Still, the accurate frame amongst the fake ones won't be blurred, so there is that, and sometimes the interpolated frames will be decent guesses.. (so somewhat advantageous ?)

- outside of the very simple to render competitive online game titles, gamers aren't going to be getting 300fps to 500fps without something like a healthy post dlss native 140 to 160 fps and then applying frame gen x2 , x3, or x4, (which would introduce enough input lag that it wouldn't be desirable for playing anything competitive online). E.g. I think a non simple to render game like Batlefield 6 gets 120 to 160fps post dlss quality upscale at 4k, without framegen.

-

 

[elvn]

Idk if I believe that less tearing result, tbh. Google might be conflating 2ms 500fpsHz with 500fps at 165hz. I'll do some more digging at some point. Regardless, with some tearing, you can run 500fps and get "extreme competitor" benefits even on a 165hz screen.

.

 

[elvn]

A little more about it for my own interest.

TLDR : Apparently, OLED response time is so fast that when running 500fps on a 165hz (or 240hz) screen, the tears will be very thin and the effect will happen so fast that it will appear like a shimmer.

this is from the 240hz screen article but the same sort of thing happens when running extreme fps on a 165hz screen:

https://evezone.evetech.co.za/performance-pulse/screen-tearing-240hz-monitor-perception-test

You can still see screen tearing at 240Hz, but it's a different beast.

• It's Faster: The tear appears and disappears so quickly that it often manifests as a subtle shimmer or wobble rather than a hard, defined line.
• It's Less Jarring: For most of our testers, it was far less distracting than on a 60Hz screen. However, for the competitive players, even that slight visual "noise" was an unwelcome distraction during intense moments.
• It's More Common Than You Think: When we uncapped the framerate and disabled all sync technologies, tearing was consistently present whenever the FPS fluctuated above and below the 240 Hz mark.

. .

A summary again from google, specifically about 500fps on a 165Hz screen :

Screen tears become significantly less of a problem at 500 FPS on a 165Hz screen.
At this extreme frame rate, tearing changes from a major visual distraction into a nearly invisible texture. Here is how the math and technology explain why:

1. The Tears Are Tiny and Scattered
At 500 FPS, your graphics card renders a new frame every 2 milliseconds. However, your 165Hz monitor only refreshes its pixels every 6.06 milliseconds. Because the GPU is working three times faster than the screen, the monitor will display three different frames simultaneously during a single top-to-bottom scan. This splits the screen into three thin slices, creating multiple "micro-tears" instead of one massive, jagged tear in the middle of your view.

2. The Pixels Match Better
At 500 FPS, the time gap between each rendered frame is incredibly small. Because the camera moves very little in just 2 milliseconds, the visual difference between Frame A, Frame B, and Frame C is minimal. The lines where the frames meet will align much closer than they would at 60 FPS, making the seams highly difficult to spot.

3. The OLED Advantage Takes Over
While the near-instant response time of an OLED panel makes tear lines perfectly sharp, the sheer speed of 500 FPS works heavily in your favor. The micro-tears flash on the screen for a mere fraction of a second before being overwritten. Instead of seeing distinct, broken lines, your brain perceives the tearing as a faint, subtle shimmer that is easy to ignore during fast gameplay.

The Trade-off: Visuals vs. Performance

• The Benefit: You get the absolute lowest possible input lag, which is ideal for competitive, fast-paced shooters.
• The Downside: You lose the pristine, cinematic visual quality that OLEDs are famous for due to the constant micro-shimmering.

. .

So for extremist first person shooter players, it's still doable with some micro shimmering.

I'd probably just cap it few below 165fpsHz personally, getting no tearing and still get 6.06 ms frame rendering latency (instead of 2ms). It would still be keeping pace with a 128 tick server's tick arrivals to your 10% lows of your ~ 160 fps average frame rate's graph. You would potentially be 4.3ms "behind" the 500fps player's reactions (~ 6ms vs 2ms), but not behind in how soon you see new tick states overall. So the amount that is an advantage might be pretty negligible throughout..The main difference compared to a very high Hz screen is that 165 fpsHz doesn't reduce the FoV movement blur like 500fps on a 500Hz display would .

Playing online at 500fps on a 500Hz screen, all of those fpsHz above the 128tick will be your local machine showing you what it is interpolating/guessing ahead of the server's next tick, that tick when it arrives corrects you to the "true reality" as necessary. Still, that tick frame won't be (as) blurry, and the guessed frames might not always be that far off of a guess, so it could help with targeting a bit.

For single player games, I'd try to get 140fps (7.14ms) to 160fps(6.25ms) of frame render latency, post dlss upscale ... (no framegen, at least until if/when I get a 360hz - 500hz screen some year).
120fps is 8.3 which isn't horrible, either flat out.. 140 to 160 for using framegen imo, though.

. .

 

[kalston]

To be honest that works with LCDs too, when the framerate is extremely high, even 60hz can look quite clean. Very hard to see the tearing or the judder from mismatched hz/fps when you're pushing 500fps+. It looks and feels good.

When I was stuck on a 60hz LCD before 2014 (and no VRR), my favourite way to play shooters was at 200fps and beyond, because in the 0-120fps range the tearing was atrocious (or the input lag, if using v-sync), but when reaching the 200+ range the tearing became mostly unnoticeable and the smoothness felt decent. I played QuakeWorld at 500fps for example (it's the Quake 1 engine so it has been possible to run at absurd framerates for a long time), it was a much better experience than any lower number or any type of sync (remember this is pre-VRR era though).


It's a common misconception seen on reddit and elsewhere that tearing only happens when framerate exceeds the refresh rate, it actually happens below as well, and the worse tearing is seen when very close to your refresh rate or at lower framerates, because well there's simply less to show so the tears become extremely large. At high framerates the tears are smaller and drowned in the noise so to say. It's very easy to test, too, just fire up a lobby in a game you can run at high framerates, stare at the edge of a wall so the tearing is extra obvious, and strafe left/right with the keyboard while comparing settings.

Same story with the judder/stutter from fps =/= hz, at higher numbers it occurs more often but for a shorter time so it becomes more and more difficult to notice.

 

[Killmassacre]

That's why I'm looking at the G5 and G6, though I'd have to go up to 55", and sit at my max 48 inches away that my current setup could allow. The G5 has dithering lines, but the jury is out whether they are visible from 48" (4 feet) away vs. a 55" screen size. People online have said that they are not noticeable once you are either 3' or 5' away (reports vary) - but they are usually talking about larger living room tvs in media rooms. I don't know that there has been any testing of it to nail it down. Hopefully it won't be overtly visible from 4' away (but eye tracking/darting your eyes around the screen might make it appear a bit in your periphery when at a borderline distance?). Will have to see if I end up scoring a G5 on sale later on in the months ahead - from somewhere with a good return policy.

I compared the 55" G5, 55" C5, 48" C5, and 42" C5 over several months as PC monitors, switching between the displays each day to see which I liked best. I found that the dithering is just as noticeable on all sizes, but on the G5 it's much more noticeable at the same distance (I'd approximate it as being twice as noticeable).

For the C5 the dithering was very bad at 3 ft (36 inches), noticeably bad at 3.5 ft (40 inches), not too noticeable at 4 ft (48 inches), and virtually non-existent at 4.5 ft (54 inches).

I ruled out the 42" since the closest I could use it was 40 inches away and the dithering was very noticeable and gave me headaches. The 48" at 4 ft away was perfectly fine where I could still read text at 100% scaling and the dithering wasn't bothersome, it was still noticeable but far better than the 42". I eventually settled on the 55" C5 at 4.5 ft away since it's much brighter and I almost never notice the dithering at this distance (only once every few days or so).

The 55" G5 was unbearable at 4 ft, and even at 4.5 ft the dithering was still very noticeable and gave me headaches when reading text (it felt like the text was moving when trying to read, almost like the tv was on a vibrating table). I found that it started to become tolerable at about 5 ft away, but then it was very heard to read text when using 100% scaling. I needed to be about 6 ft away from the 55" G5 for the dithering to become unnoticeable like my 55" C5 from 4.5 ft away. Because of this I had to rule it out as a viable option as a monitor. It also had issues with picture noise and near-black chrominance overshoot when using an OLED brightness below 15 as well as black crush (the C5 doesn't have this issue). For eye comfort I like the use OLED brightness 0 to reduce eye strain in dark environments, and even at 0 I found the G5 to be too bright.

I'm very interested in the 48" C6 since I personally found I like that size better than 55" for a PC monitor, and it seems to be around 200-300 nits brighter than my 55" C5. I'm going to probably buy and try one out to see if the dithering is tolerable at 48" inches away, if so I'll probably use it as my main monitor.

 

[kalston]

That's very valuable feedback, thanks.

 

[elvn]

I compared the 55" G5, 55" C5, 48" C5, and 42" C5 over several months as PC monitors, switching between the displays each day to see which I liked best. I found that the dithering is just as noticeable on all sizes, but on the G5 it's much more noticeable at the same distance (I'd approximate it as being twice as noticeable).

For the C5 the dithering was very bad at 3 ft (36 inches), noticeably bad at 3.5 ft (40 inches), not too noticeable at 4 ft (48 inches), and virtually non-existent at 4.5 ft (54 inches).

I ruled out the 42" since the closest I could use it was 40 inches away and the dithering was very noticeable and gave me headaches. The 48" at 4 ft away was perfectly fine where I could still read text at 100% scaling and the dithering wasn't bothersome, it was still noticeable but far better than the 42". I eventually settled on the 55" C5 at 4.5 ft away since it's much brighter and I almost never notice the dithering at this distance (only once every few days or so).

The 55" G5 was unbearable at 4 ft, and even at 4.5 ft the dithering was still very noticeable and gave me headaches when reading text (it felt like the text was moving when trying to read, almost like the tv was on a vibrating table). I found that it started to become tolerable at about 5 ft away, but then it was very heard to read text when using 100% scaling. I needed to be about 6 ft away from the 55" G5 for the dithering to become unnoticeable like my 55" C5 from 4.5 ft away. Because of this I had to rule it out as a viable option as a monitor. It also had issues with picture noise and near-black chrominance overshoot when using an OLED brightness below 15 as well as black crush (the C5 doesn't have this issue). For eye comfort I like the use OLED brightness 0 to reduce eye strain in dark environments, and even at 0 I found the G5 to be too bright.

I'm very interested in the 48" C6 since I personally found I like that size better than 55" for a PC monitor, and it seems to be around 200-300 nits brighter than my 55" C5. I'm going to probably buy and try one out to see if the dithering is tolerable at 48" inches away, if so I'll probably use it as my main monitor.

Damn. That's disappointing. I agree with kalston, very much appreciated feedback.

Hope to hear your take on the 48" C6 if you snag one.

For reference, the 55" G5 scenario I was thinking about at my pc would be 48" view distance, 4' which you said was unbearable.. and I can't go any farther.

The G6 has less aggressive dithering lines visible from reports, but the price jump is pretty extreme even for for a 55".

For a 48" C6 I'd be around 40".

.

 

[elvn]

If samsung didn't have that matte abraded screen surface, I'd consider them more. QD-OLEDs don't have that dithering , apparently.

.

 

[Killmassacre]

Damn. That's disappointing. I agree with kalston, very much appreciated feedback.

Hope to hear your take on the 48" C6 if you snag one.

For reference, the 55" G5 scenario I was thinking about at my pc would be 48" view distance, 4' which you said was unbearable.. and I can't go any farther.

The G6 has less aggressive dithering lines visible from reports, but the price jump is pretty extreme even for for a 55".

For a 48" C6 I'd be around 40".

.

I got a 48" C6 yesterday since it was on sale in my country. I can confirm it has a tandem oled panel, and it's noticeably brighter than my 55" C5. It's not quite as bright as the 55" G5, but it's way brighter than the 48" C5. (For reference the 48" C5 clips details at 900 nits, the 55" C5" at 1200 nits, the 48" C6 at 1500 nits, and the 55" G5 at 2000 nits).

There's good and bad news though. It still has quite a bit of dithering (still more than the C5), but it's much less noticeable than the G5. However, it can still gives me headaches when reading text for extended periods of time. I'm hoping that I can get used to it over time. I have 30 days to return it, so I'll try it out for a few weeks.

Some other minor issues: I found that the grey uniformity gets quite a bit worse when going into 165hz mode. This also happens on the C5 when going into 144hz, but the G5 didn't seem to have this issue. Perhaps this is just my unit. Also, the color accuracy seems slightly off, red's don't quite look right to me.

Overall I still find it to be much more usable than the 55" G5 for a few reasons:

1.) it's a smaller size and is optimal at 4' or 48" inches away.
2.) The dithering is less intense
3.) the lowest brightness setting is very low, even significantly lower than the 55" C5 I have, which helps reduce eye-strain. For comparison the lowest brightness setting on the 55" G5 was about twice as bright as the lowest setting on the 55" C5 I'm using now.
4.) Near-black chrominance overshoot at low brightness levels has improved over the G5. The G5 had significant overshoot when using OLED brightness under 15. Since the 48" C6 is way less bright, you can comfortably use it at higher brightness in desktop mode and eliminate this issue entirely. This wasn't an option for me on the G5 since it was far to bright in a dark room even at 15, heck even at 0. (This issue is most noticeable when VRR flicker happens in dark scences, where near-black chormicnace overshoot causes flashes making VRR flicker look much worse.)

 

[elvn]

I got a 48" C6 yesterday since it was on sale in my country. I can confirm it has a tandem oled panel, and it's noticeably brighter than my 55" C5. It's not quite as bright as the 55" G5, but it's way brighter than the 48" C5. (For reference the 48" C5 clips details at 900 nits, the 55" C5" at 1200 nits, the 48" C6 at 1500 nits, and the 55" G5 at 2000 nits).

There's good and bad news though. It still has quite a bit of dithering (still more than the C5), but it's much less noticeable than the G5. However, it can still gives me headaches when reading text for extended periods of time. I'm hoping that I can get used to it over time. I have 30 days to return it, so I'll try it out for a few weeks.

Some other minor issues: I found that the grey uniformity gets quite a bit worse when going into 165hz mode. This also happens on the C5 when going into 144hz, but the G5 didn't seem to have this issue. Perhaps this is just my unit. Also, the color accuracy seems slightly off, red's don't quite look right to me.

Overall I still find it to be much more usable than the 55" G5 for a few reasons:

1.) it's a smaller size and is optimal at 4' or 48" inches away.
2.) The dithering is less intense
3.) the lowest brightness setting is very low, even significantly lower than the 55" C5 I have, which helps reduce eye-strain. For comparison the lowest brightness setting on the 55" G5 was about twice as bright as the lowest setting on the 55" C5 I'm using now.
4.) Near-black chrominance overshoot at low brightness levels has improved over the G5. The G5 had significant overshoot when using OLED brightness under 15. Since the 48" C6 is way less bright, you can comfortably use it at higher brightness in desktop mode and eliminate this issue entirely. This wasn't an option for me on the G5 since it was far to bright in a dark room even at 15, heck even at 0. (This issue is most noticeable when VRR flicker happens in dark scences, where near-black chormicnace overshoot causes flashes making VRR flicker look much worse.)

Thanks for the depth of details.

For me, the +$1000 or more (+ ~ 9% tax here) price premium of the G6 for an otherwise small tv is too much, especially since if some large screen like a glossy 45 inch 5120x2160 comes out by the end of 2027 +/-, I might end up ditching the TV. Still interesting to see the stats on the dithering-ridden G5, and the G6, in threads and replies, and as comparisons.

I'm probably not as light sensitive as you seem to be. I'd recommend putting a bias light or led strip as a bias light behind your screen, that helps. I use a different (LCD) screen for static desktop/apps, text based stuff etc most of the time anyway.

The dithering amount on the c6 might not bother me either, at 40 inch to 48 inches away, but I'd have to see it.

Make sure you update to the latest firmware, because some of the new LG tvs were making the color off in over 120hz, especially 165Hz mode (people were reporting red in games looked orange, etc.) - but supposedly the last firmware update fixed that according to reports in replies, on a G6 discussion thread on avsforum I believe.

 

[elvn]

Google result claims not fixed but offers a filmaker mode work around. People on avs forum had been doing this but some claimed a firmware update fixed the color issue, idk for sure.

Edit: To be clear, people use Filmmaker mode (FMM) to avoid the problem with PC + game mode's forced tone mapping screw-up, and are still able to enable low latency mode for gaming at high Hz, they aren't using FMM with laggy tv processing. It's a work-around but hopefully they'll fix the issue overall in updates eventually

State of the 165 Hz Color Issues by Model

• LG C6 / C6H (Tandem OLED): A firmware bug causes the TV to behave like an always-on tone mapper in PC HDR at 144 Hz and 165 Hz. Recent updates have focused on adjusting brightness tracking, but the 144 Hz/165 Hz color inaccuracies and crushed blacks have not been fully resolved by firmware.
• LG G6: Recent updates significantly improved Dolby Vision performance and HDR tone mapping tracking, along with fixing color vibrancy issues in Filmmaker Mode. However, the high refresh rate color shifting remains a persistent artifact of how Windows HDR output interacts with LG's processing rather than a fully fixed panel error.
• LG G5: Updates successfully addressed input lag numbers at 165 Hz, as well as fixing HDR contouring and low-light fading. However, it still requires manual calibration to completely eliminate color shifts at maximum refresh rates.

Recommended Workaround
Because this is largely tied to Windows HDR tone-mapping logic, you can bypass the issue manually:

1. Set the TV picture setting to Filmmaker Mode to disable aggressive internal tone mapping.
2. Run the Windows HDR Calibration Tool.
3. Set the peak clipping point exactly to 1500 nits.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I guess the question is how much and under what circumstances? I know that some of them will have higher max HDR brightness and the like, but with the newer tech on both the panel and the various heatsinks and other tech (I recall reading that some of the Asus models with recent panels are enabled to be brighter thanks to better over, I've not kept up on the degree of difference with modern OLEDs and if its something accurately visible from specs or if it requires a more in depth review to see the difference

The upcoming 32 inch Tandem WOLED might paint a different picture but it's not reviewed yet. Perhaps brightness on that won't be reduced as much as say QD OLED counterparts.

Coming back to this topic. Looks like I'm totally wrong, the Tandem WOLED monitors are actually no brighter than older MLA WOLED and QD OLED at all.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oAg2X7c35Y&t=409s

The XG32UQWMS is a TB500 certified monitor yet it's real scene HDR brightness is actually lower than older TB400 MLA WOLED and QD OLEDs. Pretty sad.

Not to mention, it has insanely noticeable ABL if you go 6:03. Going with a TV really is your best bet if you want to maximize your HDR performance with OLED.

This has also killed any hopes I had of the upcoming TB1000 monitors from LG. All the monitor has to do in order to be TB1000 certified is pass a few test patterns, once real content hits then those test pattern numbers can be tossed out the window and it will probably be barely any brighter than existing monitors.

 

[SoCali]

I'm about to order one of these because the LG 39 was pathetically dim and disappointed and the AW model will be even dimmer. It sucks that I still have to resort to a TV to get a decent all arounder.

I just hope a 36in deep desk will be enough but I'm guessing this will be borderline too big

 

[elvn]

Looks like I'm totally wrong, the Tandem WOLED monitors are actually no brighter than older MLA WOLED and QD OLED at all.

Don't sweat it, high hopes but you found the writing on the wall. Good info in that reply, but yes in viewing it, disappointing.

I'm not surprised if they are continuing to nerf desktop OLED monitors, even tandem ones, in comparison to gaming tvs. Maybe that is due to the desktop monitor usage scenario being a singular screen people will be using for the desktop/apps and not just media and gaming like most people using TVs are, but maybe the 2 year warranty to give buyers confidence buying an OLED desktop monitor could be a big reason. Like maybe they give you a warranty in exchange for turning down the burners, so to speak (?). "Desktop sized" OLED monitors also have a harder time dissapating heat and would probably benefit from having a panel heatsink (and maybe even active cooling), really any OLED panel would, but that would drive the price up by a lot (and/or drop profit margin).

It turns out that in the 45" gx950a, ("TB400", WOLED and "MLA+" , not tandem, but rated in "high" brightness mode stretch to ~ 1300nit for tiny highlights) - they had been clamping the normal scene brightness in HDR so that when they stretched the curve higher, the overall screen output would be the same. People at some point realized what was happening and started using work-arounds to limit the top end until it was low enough that the normal scene brightness came back up, and a later LG firmware adjusted this too, supposedly. I knew that their high brightness mode setting was stretching the HDR curve and from what I was seeing, I suspected that they were doing some nerfing hack to the normal scene levels (and the matte abraded layer just doubled down on it, flattening blacks and losing the lush colored, wet, glossy look). I think part of the newer LG chip/AI "plus" type thing is that it is load balancing, so maybe that's part of it, whatever algorithm they set it to .

Mentioning all of that again because it might be just another example of the overall practice of "nerfing" or utilizing ways of limiting OLED desktop monitors, perhaps due to their usage scenario, and perhaps to offset the confidence-for-sales of ~ 2 year burn-in warranties on some of those screens, and/or to optimize for brighter peaks for marketing to catch the eye/notice of potential buyers. LG doesn't give the 5 year panel warranty on their tandem oled tvs that lack a panel heatsink, and they seem to nerf the brightness on the 2 year warranty monitors that lack a heatsink. I guess that in the end, regardless of the "why", the fact is "it is what it is" with OLED monitors in general.

If they could make a 800R 48" 21:9 glossy tandem "~ C6" I'd be pretty happy (not happening, but would be nice). I'll still be happy with a current 48" or 55" LG OLED gaming tv though, as long as there are no major cons.

Maybe by end 2027 or in 2028 some true "oversized" flagship gaming monitors will pop up again, which might go brighter than smaller monitors. Phosphorescent blue OLED models will help resilience so might help vs brightness nerfing, but those (hybrid tandem ones with one layer having phosblue) are supposedly going to be farther out than I expected... Some estimates are 2028 to 2029 for monitors and 2030 to 2033 for tvs.

. .

 

[elvn]

I'm about to order one of these because the LG 39 was pathetically dim and disappointed and the AW model will be even dimmer. It sucks that I still have to resort to a TV to get a decent all arounder.

I just hope a 36in deep desk will be enough but I'm guessing this will be borderline too big

Some people are fine with sitting particularly close to larger 4k screens, throwing the sides of the screen off axis and into their peripheral, sitting up against a wall in effect and perceiving a lower ~1500p like pixel density. It's still usable, but it's a picture quality downgrade.

The human central viewing angle is 60 to 50 degrees. The nearer and nearer you sit than that, the sides of the screen get pushed into your periphery more and you see the pixels in those areas increasingly aslant from you, where they become progressively more off axis from you the farther away from you they are. Once you are nearer than ~ 64 deg viewing angle on a 4k screen, you also drop beneath 60 PPD. I consider 60 PPD a minimum for seeing what is expected of a "4k pixel density". The nearer you sit than that, the more you are trading off perceived pixel density and getting a worse viewing angle, off-axis screen area non-uniformity, and effectively are seeing distortion of the image ~ geometry "in the wings".


. .

I just hope a 36in deep desk will be enough

You can see below that you would probably end up within or pretty close to the sweet spot:

48" screen at 33.5 inch view distance gets 60 PPD and a 64 deg viewing angle
48" screen at 36.0 inch view distance gets 64 PPD and a 60 deg viewing angle
48" screen at 40.0 inch view distance gets 70 PPD and a 55 deg viewing angle


. .

36" screen surface to eyeballs is great. You might be a little short of that with the screen's foot right on top of the desk but it would probably be fine. If it's a corner desk, just be aware that those don't allow for larger screens to fit all the way into the corner if the desk is pressed into and between the actual corner walls of a room.

Personally, (if not a corner desk pressed all the way against/into corner walls), I'd get a slim rail-spine/post floor tv stand with a flat foot to decouple the screen from the desk, allowing a gap between the desk and the screen, or even if I was keeping the stand right next to the back of the desk. If you ever go that route, just make sure the lowest setting of the stand you are looking at is low enough before you buy it, some have a minimum height that is too tall, and read some reviews so that you get a solid one.



.

some graphics I throw around that help visualize what I was talking about above:

.

* for reference, a 1440p screen at the typical 60 to 50 deg viewing angle gets 42 to 51 PPD
. .

. .

https://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDensit...sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:36,distUnit:in

.

 

[RanceJustice]

Coming back to this topic. Looks like I'm totally wrong, the Tandem WOLED monitors are actually no brighter than older MLA WOLED and QD OLED at all.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oAg2X7c35Y&t=409s

The XG32UQWMS is a TB500 certified monitor yet it's real scene HDR brightness is actually lower than older TB400 MLA WOLED and QD OLEDs. Pretty sad.

View attachment 813408

Not to mention, it has insanely noticeable ABL if you go 6:03. Going with a TV really is your best bet if you want to maximize your HDR performance with OLED.

This has also killed any hopes I had of the upcoming TB1000 monitors from LG. All the monitor has to do in order to be TB1000 certified is pass a few test patterns, once real content hits then those test pattern numbers can be tossed out the window and it will probably be barely any brighter than existing monitors.

I'd be curious to see how this stands up to other Tandem OLED monitors, Tandem OLED TVs etc.. to see if its an issue of one specific model or panel wide. Also, I wonder what other benefits there are besides brightness? Even with brightness, it looked like some previews of Tandem OLEDs were brighter or had other benefits (ie that 1440P Tandem Asus that came out before the 4K ones, vs other 1440P OLED monitors , and Tandem TVs vs older TVs etc). Even if the'yre no brighter, do they have some other benefits that present themselves across both SDR and HDR content, color, refresh, and other features that make them worthwhile?

As far as nerfing monitors vs TVs, I guess the other thing that bothers me is that there don't seem to be any TVs that - despite over 5+ years of "People are buying these things to use AS monitors" - they equip some largere model+ not just the latest bright Tandem panel, but with at least 1 latest-gen DisplayPort, 240hz refresh rate capability, and other highest end OLED monitor features. If they'd do that I'd feel much better about the fear over brightness burning out so called 'small' devices if they equipped even some of the larger ones (42" would be a perfect place to start - and do not wimp out on low specs for 42 - that's infuriating that the panel or specs may be different unless you buy some behemoth home theater wall) with PC-focused high performance features.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I'd be curious to see how this stands up to other Tandem OLED monitors, Tandem OLED TVs etc.. to see if its an issue of one specific model or panel wide. Also, I wonder what other benefits there are besides brightness? Even with brightness, it looked like some previews of Tandem OLEDs were brighter or had other benefits (ie that 1440P Tandem Asus that came out before the 4K ones, vs other 1440P OLED monitors , and Tandem TVs vs older TVs etc). Even if the'yre no brighter, do they have some other benefits that present themselves across both SDR and HDR content, color, refresh, and other features that make them worthwhile?

As far as nerfing monitors vs TVs, I guess the other thing that bothers me is that there don't seem to be any TVs that - despite over 5+ years of "People are buying these things to use AS monitors" - they equip some largere model+ not just the latest bright Tandem panel, but with at least 1 latest-gen DisplayPort, 240hz refresh rate capability, and other highest end OLED monitor features. If they'd do that I'd feel much better about the fear over brightness burning out so called 'small' devices if they equipped even some of the larger ones (42" would be a perfect place to start - and do not wimp out on low specs for 42 - that's infuriating that the panel or specs may be different unless you buy some behemoth home theater wall) with PC-focused high performance features.

The other benefit would be slightly better color volume, but at these low brightness levels it will not matter. It's like having two cars, one with 300hp and another with 1000hp, but both are limited to a top speed of 40mph. The better color volume of the Tandem panel will simply never be realized when you are only seeing 400 nits in real content. Also, tandem panels with the white subpixel seem to be prone to worst uniformity with a lot of complaints about grey banding so it's not all pros and no cons.

Tandem WOLED vs older MLA WOLED:

 

[zandor]

Some people are fine with sitting particularly close to larger 4k screens, throwing the sides of the screen off axis and into their peripheral, sitting up against a wall in effect and perceiving a lower ~1500p like pixel density. It's still usable, but it's a picture quality downgrade.

I often like that for gaming when a game supports it. The game has to have an adjustable FOV that I can crank up so the game stays the right "size" in degrees. It's trading apparent pixel density for immersion, or sharpness for size. I have my 48" 4k OLED gaming screen mounted on a TV stand with casters behind my desk so I can roll it back to proper TV/Movie/default FOV distance for games that don't have an FOV adjustment. Or watching TV/Movies, but I usually just use the TV in the living room for that.

 

[elvn]

. It's like having two cars, one with 300hp and another with 1000hp, but both are limited to a top speed of 40mph

Good way to put it. They actually put things like that on some trucks to prevent drivers from overly speeding on highways, called a speed governor or sometimes just called "a governor" (prob could have guessed, obvious name lol).

It's also sort-of like underclocking, manufacturer locked chip-wise, a notably hot running cpu or gpu, one known to overheat or have a shorter lifespan, in order to preserve it.. (especially if it has a warranty they have to honor?). Also in this case, it's a passive cooled cpu/gpu, and doesn't even have a heastink

there don't seem to be any TVs that - despite over 5+ years of "People are buying these things to use AS monitors" - they equip some larger model+ not just the latest bright Tandem panel, but with at least 1 latest-gen DisplayPort, 240hz refresh rate capability,

For that facet, hdmi 2.1 with dsc can do 240Hz 4k at 4:4:4 chroma / RGB, 10 bit HDR. It's more limited for higher resolutions like 4k+ based ultrawides, or for those who want screens over 240hz at 4k.

The LinusTechTips forum port bandwidth calculator page can show you what bandwidth limitations there are for different resolutions, and you can set the DSC ratio to 2:1, 2.5:1, 3:1, etc.

. .

You actually have the bandwidth for 4k 10bit 4:4:4 / RGB HDR 240hz even at DSC 2:1, so you have more than enough for higher when using DSC 2.5:1 and DSC 3:1. However, the way gpus function with "Slices", and built in chip limitations/design decisions on both gpus and tvs come into play.

Anyway 4k 10 bit 4:4:4 HDR at 240 Hz is doable if both the display manufacturers and the gpu manufacturers include the right hardware/controllers and design for it. If not for those hurdles, The real world limit for 4k 10 bit 4:4:4 HDR would be 383 Hz over hdmi 2.1 when using DSC 3:1.


Some google info here:

At 10-bit HDR, RGB/4:4:4 color, over a maximum 48 Gbps HDMI 2.1 Fixed Rate Link (FRL), the peak refresh rates for your specified Display Stream Compression (DSC) ratios are as follows:

• DSC 2:1 --> 240 Hz
• DSC 2.5:1 --> 240 Hz
• DSC 3:1 --> 240 Hz

Because HDMI 2.1's maximum uncompressed ceiling is relatively high 42.6 Gbps after overhead), running a 10-bit RGB 4K@120Hz signal requires no compression at all. Applying any of these DSC ratios to 4K only makes a 240Hz signal require 21 Gbps to 32 Gbps of active bandwidth, well within HDMI 2.1's limits. As a result, 240Hz becomes the common hardware limitation (e.g., panel controller maximums).


. . .

Why is the limit still 240hz even at 3:1 compression ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The refresh rate remains capped at 240 Hz even at a 3:1 compression ratio because the bottleneck is no longer the HDMI cable’s transmission bandwidth. Instead, the system hits hard internal hardware limits on both the monitor and the graphics card.

The three major bottlenecks preventing refresh rates from scaling higher include:

1. Fixed Timing and Protocol Standards (The CTA Ceiling)
HDMI relies on standardized video timings managed by organizations like the Consumer Technology Association (CTA).

• The CTA-861 standard defines the exact timing parameters (such as horizontal/vertical blanking intervals and pixel clocks) that devices use to talk to each other.
• 240 Hz is the hard operational ceiling currently written into these display timings for mainstream consumer resolutions. There are simply no standardized structures in the HDMI protocol to request or handshake a higher frequency like 360 Hz or 480 Hz over an HDMI link at 4K.

2. Monitor Scaler and TCON Processing Limits
Even if the compressed data fits easily into the HDMI cable, the monitor must decode and display it.

• The DSC ASIC Decoder: The specialized chip inside the monitor responsible for decompressing the video stream in real-time has a maximum throughput capability.
• The Timing Controller (TCON): The TCON takes the raw uncompressed pixels and distributes them to the actual display panel rows and columns. Mainstream display scalers are physically engineered with a maximum pixel clock rate that caps out at 240 Hz processing speeds for high resolutions.

3. GPU Display Engine Constraints
The graphics card itself handles video output through an internal pipeline called the Display Engine (separate from the 3D rendering engine).

• The GPU's internal pixel clock has a rigid frequency limit.
• To output higher refresh rates, the GPU must split the screen into multiple internal vertical segments (slices) to process the data. Current display engines on graphics cards max out at the number of simultaneous slices they can output over a single port, capping the final output at 240 Hz.

---

Summary: Bandwidth vs. Processing
Think of 3:1 compression as making the data packet much smaller. While you have plenty of room left on the "highway" (the HDMI cable), the "toll booths" on either end (the GPU's output engine and the monitor's internal processor) cannot physically clear cars any faster than 240 frames per second

 

[elvn]

I often like that for gaming when a game supports it. The game has to have an adjustable FOV that I can crank up so the game stays the right "size" in degrees. It's trading apparent pixel density for immersion, or sharpness for size. I have my 48" 4k OLED gaming screen mounted on a TV stand with casters behind my desk so I can roll it back to proper TV/Movie/default FOV distance for games that don't have an FOV adjustment. Or watching TV/Movies, but I usually just use the TV in the living room for that.

Yeah you can buy a 1440p ultrawide, too, but low PPD (sub-60 PPD) is not for me.

.

The 45" 800R gx950a at 5120x2160 is an excellent format, for example.. very immersive, practically 'VR" like , minus the holographic 3D effect. The PQ was a downgrade unfortunately or that would be a great screen format otherwise when sitting at the center of curvature. 800R(adius) = 800mm = ~ 32 inch view distance, where the screen's pixels would be on-axis to you all the way to the ends of the screen.

.

 

[elvn]

I often like that for gaming when a game supports it. The game has to have an adjustable FOV that I can crank up so the game stays the right "size" in degrees. It's trading apparent pixel density for immersion, or sharpness for size. I have my 48" 4k OLED gaming screen mounted on a TV stand with casters behind my desk so I can roll it back to proper TV/Movie/default FOV distance for games that don't have an FOV adjustment. Or watching TV/Movies, but I usually just use the TV in the living room for that.

I like that kind of setup though, I just don't like pushing 4k below what i consider what 4k density should be down to ~ 1500p like look, and if going very close, the sides of the screen becoming off-axis with those cons.

My setup also has similar capability, with three screen mounted separately - but my desk is also on casters, so I end up moving the desk farther away when using all three monitors more, and closer to 60 to 50 deg viewing angle (64 to 77 PPD) when viewing a game so that the center screen fills my central viewing angle. Very similar capabilities with our setups, and the same 48" 4k OLED in the middle. I'm just not into lowering the PPD that much and the off-axis aslant view of the sides/ends of a screen..

The 800R curvature of the 45" 5120x2160 was great because when sitting at the center of curvature (~ 32" away at ~ 80PPD), the whole screen remained on axis as if you had a portrait mode screen held out in front of you on a giant selfie stick and rotated your chair (like a compass), and filled in screen space there left/right. Currently, my portrait side screens are angled inward to face me, too, for the same reasons. If it was all one straight line it wouldn't work as well.



.

 

[SoCali]

I got one of these yesterday and it is surprisingly bright. It kind of shocked me compared to the 45" and 39" I tried prior.

Grey uniformity is horrific on my unit. Otherwise clips at 1500nits with HGIG enabled and I'm measuring legit 937nit 10ish percent highlights.

PPI and height are issues. The only way I can even make this work is if I sit it flush against my desk which is 36" deep with the display pushed all the way back. The other thing that became super apparent was that I never really noticed a difference worth the performance penalty when switching between DLSS 4.5 L quality/balanced/performance but on this I can tell them apart clear as day.

 

[elvn]

I still haven't pulled the trigger yet. I've considered risking greentoe for the savings instead of waiting for LG store / BB sales a few months down the road but haven't decided.

Some people say the uniformity thing, at least a "dirty" look if you have that, disappears after a few pixel refresh routines I think. Some suggest giving the TV 50 to 100 hours of standard use as a "break-in period" before trying to do anything manually.

I would highly recommend you consider getting a simple rail-spine or post style tv stand, with a heavy flat foot (or caster wheels if it will fit), and making a slight gap behind your desk, bringing the desk forward a little. That is, if your room layout/design will allow for it. If you do go that route, just make certain that the stand allows for a low enough setting because some have a minimum height that is too high vs a desk. (Also check reviews to make sure it's solid without issues).

36" is 60 deg and 64 PPD, which is in optimal ranges so should be fine, but that 36" you have is your desk edge to edge, not the monitor on it's foot on top of the desk vs the distance to your eyeballs. Personally I like around 55 degree viewing angle which gets 70 PPD, requiring ~ 40 inch view distance for a 48" 4k screen. That wouldn't take much, it would be around a 4" gap between the far end of your desk and the screen.

.

I only run DLSS on quality personally, that makes it upscale from 1440p.

 

[kalston]

Really depends on the game.

At 4k 48" I find performance dlss 4.5 to be more than fine in general, in some games even ultra perf looks good enough, though there is definitely more shimmering and softness in motion which in some games is absolutely unpleasant (like say, Indiana Jones dense forests). In some games it even looks kinda bad when static so yeah, it's a bit niche for sure, but not completely unusable either which is cool. I've even used it in VR and it's really impressive what it manages to do, even if looking far worse than performance in that case.

Even if I do spot a difference between perf and quality (or even DLAA) though, if it means I can hit my target refresh rate without frame gen, it's a no brainer really for me to use the lower preset. On a 120hz-165hz display, frame gen is usable, sure, but the latency is very noticeable with a mouse and the artifacts far more visible than the upscaling ones.

 

[SoCali]

I'm going to try to get it on a stand behind the desk to both lower it and push it away in an attempt to make it usable.

I'm out of patience with the monitor market, everything has some huge drawback whether it be the size of this or the lack of brightness of the monitors or just total MIA on the mini led front outside of China.

If I could have a 39-42" version of this (don't care if it's 16:9) capable of 240hz I'd be happy for a while.

 

[elvn]

Really depends on the game.

At 4k 48" I find performance dlss 4.5 to be more than fine in general, in some games even ultra perf looks good enough, though there is definitely more shimmering and softness in motion which in some games is absolutely unpleasant (like say, Indiana Jones dense forests). In some games it even looks kinda bad when static so yeah, it's a bit niche for sure, but not completely unusable either which is cool. I've even used it in VR and it's really impressive what it manages to do, even if looking far worse than performance in that case.

Even if I do spot a difference between perf and quality (or even DLAA) though, if it means I can hit my target refresh rate without frame gen, it's a no brainer really for me to use the lower preset. On a 120hz-165hz display, frame gen is usable, sure, but the latency is very noticeable with a mouse and the artifacts far more visible than the upscaling ones.

Whatever works for you, those options are included so people can use them when they want to. I know I bag on it, but 1440p screens for gaming are still viable, too, just not my first/best choice anymore. Consoles use dynamic down-resolution and checkerboarding, which also works for them.

. .


The lag of framegen is pretty bad imo. I'd probably only use it if I had, post dlss quality upscale of 1440 to 4k, a base frame rate of 140fps to 160fps for 120fps as my 10% lows. That means it would only be useful for me to multiply those rates for use on a 240hz or 360hz 4k screen. Even then, it would still only be "usable" lag of around 20ms to 22ms, which is still not great, imo. The C6 OLED gaming tv maxes out at 165Hz so that wouldn't be a case for using framegen for at least a few years for me.
. . .

Gaming tv display lag isn't really good until it gets 10ms or under, for comparison.

. . .

Here is some technical info about it in the quotes below, but it comes down to the fact that (imo) the latency is poor until you get 120fps or more base, as your 10% lows optimally, before applying framegen - and even then it's still not that great. That doesn't mean that I hate framegen tech or that I think that it's not the way forward to get to 500Hz and 1000Hz gaming in the future. I just think it doesn't really get useful until you already have well over 100fps as your 10% lows to begin with, where it would be useful to apply to very high Hz screens - at least how it works for now.

. .


When talking about getting 120fps, 140 to 160fps, those are averages, so your lag will be higher than those rates as your frame rate graph dips throughout your gameplay.

Base rates before framegen have somewhere around these rates as the 10% lows. Putting this here just to show you can range lower through to that low of a frame rate, and that high of framegen induced lag, even when you getting 120fps average.

~90 fps as your 10% lows when running 120fps average (90fps rate fgx2 ~ 24ms , fgx3 ~ 27ms)

120 fps as your 10% lows requires ~ 150 fps average. .. and that 120fps after framegen x2 gives you around 20ms latency for 240hz screens, fgx3 for 360hz screen ~> 22ms
140 fps as your 10% lows requires ~ 175 fps average
160 fps as your 10% lows requires ~ 200 fps average

. .

. . . .

This chart shows the frame rate averages and the latency averages ,but your ranging through to your 10% lows are probably roughly from your average through to a notch worse (between your average and a row up above your average in the chart)

Real-World Latency Chart

Visual Output Rate	Underlying Engine Base	Avg Latency (No Reflex)	Avg Latency (Reflex ON)
Native Render Tiers
60 FPS (Native)	60 FPS	~50.00 ms	16.67 ms
80 FPS (Native)	80 FPS	~38.00 ms	12.50 ms
90 FPS (Native)	90 FPS	~33.50 ms	11.11 ms
120 FPS (Native)	120 FPS	~26.00 ms	8.33 ms
140 FPS (Native)	140 FPS	~21.00 ms	7.14 ms
160 FPS (Native)	160 FPS	~18.00 ms	6.25 ms
FrameGen x2 Tiers
120 FPS (via x2 FG)	60 FPS Base	~62.00 ms	36.67 ms
160 FPS (via x2 FG)	80 FPS Base	~48.50 ms	28.50 ms
180 FPS (via x2 FG)	90 FPS Base	~42.00 ms	24.00 ms
240 FPS (via x2 FG)	120 FPS Base	~35.66 ms	19.66 ms
280 FPS (via x2 FG)	140 FPS Base	~29.78 ms	16.78 ms
320 FPS (via x2 FG)	160 FPS Base	~25.00 ms	15.00 ms
FrameGen x3 Tiers
180 FPS (via x3 FG)	60 FPS Base	~69.00 ms	41.67 ms
240 FPS (via x3 FG)	80 FPS Base	~53.50 ms	31.50 ms
270 FPS (via x3 FG)	90 FPS Base	~46.50 ms	26.50 ms
360 FPS (via x3 FG)	120 FPS Base	~39.66 ms	21.66 ms
420 FPS (via x3 FG)	140 FPS Base	~33.28 ms	18.28 ms
480 FPS (via x3 FG)	160 FPS Base	~28.50 ms	16.25 ms
FrameGen x4 Tiers
240 FPS (via x4 FG)	60 FPS Base	~74.00 ms	44.67 ms
320 FPS (via x4 FG)	80 FPS Base	~56.00 ms	32.00 ms
360 FPS (via x4 FG)	90 FPS Base	~49.33 ms	27.33 ms
480 FPS (via x4 FG)	120 FPS Base	~42.66 ms	22.66 ms
560 FPS (via x4 FG)	140 FPS Base	~36.78 ms	19.78 ms
640 FPS (via x4 FG)	160 FPS Base	~32.00 ms	18.00 ms

. .


Sources

Official Technology & Developer Documentation

• NVIDIA Streamline Guidelines: Technical setup for frame-pacing and latency reduction is detailed in the NVIDIA Streamline GitHub Documentation. [1]
• NVIDIA Reflex Integration: Review how the render queue is eliminated and how hardware-level latency testing works on the NVIDIA Developer Portal. [1]
• AMD Frame Latency Meter (FLM): To understand how the physical measurement of mouse-to-display latency is calculated, see the HWCooling Input Lag Testing Guide. [1]

Empirical Hardware Reviews & Analyses

• Digital Foundry Analysis: Real-world hardware captures using LDAT tools (confirming the 10ms–15ms latency penalty of an interpolation queue over base framerates) can be found in the Digital Foundry NVIDIA DLSS 3 Breakdown on Reddit and community tracking of their multi-frame generation coverage via Hacker News. [1, 2]
• Tom's Hardware Input Lag Research: A comprehensive evaluation of how frame generation decouples visual fluidity from input responsiveness can be read on Tom's Hardware Component Analysis. [1]
• Hardware Unboxed Frame Generation Limits: An in-depth video essay explaining why low engine baselines break frame interpolation pacing can be viewed directly on YouTube via Hardware Unboxed. [1]

. .

 

[elvn]

I'm going to try to get it on a stand behind the desk to both lower it and push it away in an attempt to make it usable.

I'm out of patience with the monitor market, everything has some huge drawback whether it be the size of this or the lack of brightness of the monitors or just total MIA on the mini led front outside of China.

If I could have a 39-42" version of this (don't care if it's 16:9) capable of 240hz I'd be happy for a while.

Give the stand a chance. You might even prefer it after a while compared to up close screens.

 

[elvn]

Cross-posting/replying this here since it's relevant to the C6 :

. .

You convinced me to buy the monitor. If the horrible grainy greys and vertical bands are gone with the absence of a white sub pixel and it can come near QD-OLED uniformity I'm all for it. With the 48" C6 I'm trying to use now I just cant get over the vertical bands. Makes every explorer window/dark themed content look disgusting.

How many hours do you have on it so far? They say use it normally 50 to 100 hours, some say up to 200 hours - where it will run through it's lighter, short wear-evening cycles a few times normally. Then if you still see a problem, maybe force a full (long) wear-evening routine. People have seen that clear up after one or both.

A lot of people have said it cleared up after that, though some may slightly exist due to the nature of the panel tech, it mostly "went away" and is not in your face issue anymore from many reports. (People may see severe banding out of the box, and after some short pixel refresh times and/or a manual long refresh cycle, it becomes very subtle and something you'd have to look for.

If not, it could be a panel lottery thing, so I would run it 200 hours, if it's still bad I'd run a manual (long) pixel refresh. If it's still bad, I'd swap it during your return window for a different panel and start over.

. . .

Feel free to answer in the C6 thread if you feel like it. I just noticed your reply here because I'm following this thread out of interest, too.

• Panel Settling: A prominent AVSForum OLED Banding Discussion advises new owners to wait roughly 100–200 hours of viewing time and to run automatic compensation cycles to allow the screen's uniformity to improve.
• Source & Color Settings: Users have frequently found that what appears to be severe color banding is sometimes a compression artifact or processing bug. Switching your UHD player or streaming device output from YCbCr 4:2:0/4:2:2 to 4:4:4 often resolves the issue.
• Gray Uniformity: Members use 5% and 10% gray test patterns in dark rooms to identify these vertical streaks. While subtle banding is widely considered standard for OLED technology (often dubbed the "panel lottery"), severe banding that distracts in normal viewing usually warrants a warranty replacement.

. .

https://www.reddit.com/r/LGOLED/comments/1sunzc8/vertical_banding/

. . .

You could also try dropping down from 165Hz mode to see if that does anything, and swap to a different high quality high bandwidth hdmi cable - in the process of elimination.

. .

 

[kalston]

I really doubt the banding changes after a few hours or even a pixel refresh cycle. It's kinda like headphones/speakers "breaking-in", it's just our brain getting used to something rather than a physical change in the hardware (measurements have been countless times with audio stuff).

Unless someone carefully took pictures before and after, with the exact same camera set up and lightning conditions, to prove otherwise?

 

[elvn]

I really doubt the banding changes after a few hours or even a pixel refresh cycle. It's kinda like headphones "breaking-in", it's just our brain getting used to something rather than a physical change.

Unless someone carefully took pictures before and after, with the exact same camera set up and lightning conditions, to prove otherwise?

I've read reports of it many times, though. There can be a panel lottery as well , however.


This from recent replies on the avsforum thread:

. . . .

C6H user on avsforum:
"
After two 4 hour pixel refreshes, this panel is super clean as far as vertical banding goes
There is some lght tinting at the edges but I rarely notice it.

I'd say my only real complaint, coming from years watching QDOLED, is low light scenes causing the white subpixel flashing. Hopefully LG can get a better handle on that.

I love this TV. It's a keeper."

. .

Some googled info:

Vertical grey banding often goes away after an LG OLED pixel refresh because the cycle actively recalibrates the electrical voltage supplied to individual pixels. This process, known as a compensation cycle, smooths out microscopic manufacturing variances that cause some pixels to emit slightly more or less light than others. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Why Banding Happens
Because of the immense difficulty of manufacturing millions of organic light-emitting diodes to emit exact, uniform light at very low voltages (near-black grayscale), some OLED panels suffer from minor unevenness right out of the box. This effect, which looks like vertical streaks or bands in dark grey scenes, is a known characteristic of WOLED display technology. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

How the Pixel Refresh Fixes It

• Voltage Recalibration: The Pixel Refresher (or panel noise compensation cycle) measures the electrical characteristics of every single pixel. [1, 2, 3]
• Charge Adjustment: It then adjusts the driving voltage on a column-by-column or pixel-by-pixel basis, effectively "rebalancing" the panel's uniformity. [1, 2]
• Settling In: As suggested by community discussions on platforms like Reddit, this process helps the pixels "break in" so that voltage variances subside as usage hours accumulate. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Important Considerations for Your Panel

• Automatic Cycles: The TV automatically runs a short 10-minute compensation cycle every time you turn it off after cumulative use.
• Manual Pixel Cleaning: A deeper, hour-long manual pixel refresh can be triggered through the TV's settings if banding is severe. However, manufacturers recommend allowing the TV to naturally run its automatic cycles as it breaks in over the first 100 to 200 hours, rather than relying on the manual refresher too frequently. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

. . . .


. . . . .

I agree with you about the before -> after photo thing, for science.

.

Older G4 vertical banding report from a few years ago showing that it cleared up, with before /after pictures. He also states that it looks more severe in both before/after pictures just due to the camera.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LGOLED/comments/1fpjc3z/vertical_banding_got_fixed_in_one_day_here_is_how/

. .

 

[kalston]

Interesting.

Feels like maybe this should be done in the factory before putting them for sale if it's that simple, lol.

 

[zehoo]

I really doubt the banding changes after a few hours or even a pixel refresh cycle. It's kinda like headphones/speakers "breaking-in", it's just our brain getting used to something rather than a physical change in the hardware (measurements have been countless times with audio stuff).

Unless someone carefully took pictures before and after, with the exact same camera set up and lightning conditions, to prove otherwise?

I had the panel replaced in my a90k under warranty (same as the c2). The brand new panel had insanely bad banding when I first turned it on. It was almost unseeable after a day and gone after a few days. It's not a tandem panel, but fresh oled panels do seem to require some use to clear up banding sometimes.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Running a pixel refresh on my PG32UCDP also helped clear up the uniformity compared to out of the box. But if your panel is just a lottery loser then no amounts of pixel refreshes is going to fix it.

 

[SoCali]

It improved as much as it will ever improve after the 1st or 2nd refresh. Out the box was unusable, after initial or 2nd is it's current still poor state that has remained consistent across all subsequent pixel refreshes. I probably just lost the panel lottery.

 

[TwistedMetalGear]

It improved as much as it will ever improve after the 1st or 2nd refresh. Out the box was unusable, after initial or 2nd is it's current still poor state that has remained consistent across all subsequent pixel refreshes. I probably just lost the panel lottery.

Can you take a pic? I'm curious how bad it is.

 

[elvn]

Can you take a pic? I'm curious how bad it is.

Cameras typically enhance things like that (and cameras have other biases), so pictures almost certainly wouldn't be a fair representation of what it looked like in person.

It improved as much as it will ever improve after the 1st or 2nd refresh. Out the box was unusable, after initial or 2nd is it's current still poor state that has remained consistent across all subsequent pixel refreshes. I probably just lost the panel lottery.

That sucks. Sorry to hear it. That makes me want to wait out sales at BB and LG store rather than go with greentoe, since greentoe is a lot more difficult with returns and has a tiny return window besides. Appreciate that you are keeping us all updated, thanks.

.

 

[elvn]

Most people are happy with these model TVs, including people who saw some vertical banding which was bad out of the box and mostly went away - but the panel lottery is also a thing for sure.

I would not keep a screen if it looked like some of the vertical banding / dirty screens I've seen online that are reminiscent of a faded oritental / persian rug.

. .

some info from what people have gone through regarding this issue:


.. they say the screen won't be "baked in" until up to 200 hours of screen time
.. some people had the issue until they replaced their hdmi cables with different high quality ones (even if those cables worked "fine" with other screens)
.. some noticed color/bit rate was an issue, where when they dropped from 165hz mode's higher bandwidth, it cleared up (not optimal but might help some people, and it might be related to the cable bandwidth thing, too).
.. incorrect setttings in the pipeline (e.g. not being 4:4:4 / rgb, or color bitrate setting, or other misc settings) can make the problem prominent.
.. high brightness on desktop/apps can highlight it
.

google result blurb:

Panel Uniformity (Dirty Screen Effect)
OLED pixels do not emit light with 100% identical efficiency across the entire screen during manufacturing, creating faint vertical streaks. This is extremely common on the 5-10% gray scale.

• Why it shows in Windows: A solid white, gray, or lightly tinted background will easily expose this. It is usually the most visible when looking at flat grey app backgrounds, like the default view of a dark-mode app, Windows Explorer, or a browser.

2. Signal Processing and Color Banding (8-bit vs. 10-bit)
Windows apps and desktop environments frequently display gradients or solid colors in 8-bit color, which limits the tonal precision of the panel.

• Why it shows in Windows: If your graphics card or display cable is sending a compressed signal, it can cause the display to "step" colors, creating distinct lines instead of smooth tones.

3. Temporary Image Retention / Uneven Wear
If you regularly have static windows (like web browsers, taskbars, or app sidebars) open for extended periods, those areas of the screen can temporarily retain a slight "shadow" or uneven brightness compared to the rest of the screen.

---

How to Fix or Minimize the Banding

• Run a Pixel Refresher: Navigate to the TV's Settings > Picture > OLED Care > Device Self Care > Pixel Cleaning. Let the TV complete this cycle when you aren't using it. This recalibrates the voltages of individual pixels and helps clean up banding.
• Check Your Settings: Ensure your TV's HDMI input is labeled as PC Mode to reduce image processing that artificially limits color gradients.
• Adjust NVIDIA/AMD Settings: Open your graphics card control panel and make sure your Output Color Depth is set to 10-bit and your Output Color Format is set to RGB Full to maximize the gradient smoothness.
• Hide Static Elements: Make use of dark mode where you can, set your Windows background to pure black, and auto-hide the taskbar to prevent static UI elements from imprinting on the panel.

. .

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUGynMUEX6o/

. .

---------------------------------------

https://www.makeuseof.com/oled-tvs-have-a-major-problem-and-its-not-burn-in/

I’ve sent back an embarrassing number of OLED TVs over the years, swapping them during the return period until I found a panel with a level of banding I could live with.

.

While no large OLED TV is going to have a perfectly uniform panel, based on my past unhinged experiences of returning OLEDs at an alarming rate, it’s best not to judge a screen straight out of its box. Generally speaking, OLED TVs take a little while to settle in. If you spot particularly bad banding shortly after unboxing your display while viewing YouTube test patterns that check screen uniformity via grey-scale tests, try not to immediately freak out.

Instead, it’s best to give your new TV time to settle. After around 100 hours of normal screen usage, your panel should hopefully look more uniform, with clear gradients and dark areas appearing as opposed to when you first unboxed it.

.

I’ve yet to encounter an OLED TV that didn’t have at least a little vertical banding. Thankfully, pixel cleaning cycles are more effective than they used to be, and in general, I’ve found that as OLED technology has improved, banding issues have lessened.

.

I've not noticed banding with occasional browser use on my 48CX, or in gaming. I primarily use my 48" gaming tv for gaming and media, and for popping media out from a frame to it from other screens from a side screen's browser.

That said, I am using:

.. dark mode in windows OS, blackout background, taskbarhider.exe (locks taskbar away, toggles it to show/hide via a custom hotkey), no icons on desktop (I put them in a favorited folder inside of my docs)
.. dark mode in firefox web browser + dark reader addon for individual sites
.. dark mode in my 3rd party file browser
.. dark mode in thunderbird/email clients
.. dark mode in visual studio code / text editor
.. dark mode in various chat apps I use

. .

I just ran the panel uniformity test youtube link from the "makeuseof" article I linked above and had no problems.

My desktop SDR slider with HDR enabled on the windows desktop, for the LG 48CX oled not my side screens I do most of my static desktop/app stuff on, is set to level 23.

 

[elvn]

https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED_Gaming/s/4eb6piXRec

"The phone really enhances it but honestly at 120 with 165hz disabled you can't see it while gaming "

"I know ive posted mine before but wanted to show a comparison so if you only have a console or are okay with only 120hz the risk of banding seems lower.Both pictures are of 95% gray. 1st is with 165hz mode enabled and 165hz selected. Second picture is at 120hz without 165hz mode selected. Virtually invisible while playing at 120 but very obvious whole playing at 165hz. If I had a console instead of a PC I definitely wouldn't be returning the 48 c6

.

Oof.


"48 c6 165hz mode on vs off"

.

.

.

 

[zehoo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/OLED_Gaming/s/4eb6piXRec




.

Oof.


"48 c6 165hz mode on vs off"

View attachment 814999
.

View attachment 815000

.

.

He certainly lost the panel lottery. Maybe it’s an early batch issue. All the more reason to wait for heavy discounts if it stays as a lottery.

RTings early review is out if you have a sub. They give it 8.8/10 for out of the box colour accuracy in game optimiser mode which is pretty good if you cbf calibrating it.

https://www.rtings.com/early-access/monitor/reviews/lg/c6-48-oled