Well there is one OLED pc monitor you can get

InaDaise

InaDaise

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
128
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
That is a professional monitor. Unless you have a business requirement for the specs it offers, you are just throwing your money away. If I have $5k to throw at a monitor, I am buying the 2017 version of the 65" LG OLED when it comes out at $4k. Now I don't have any cash at the moment to upgrade my 2008 24" 1200P monitor but I am also saving up to buy a house in ~18 months.
 
Ok yeah right Sony makes a 55" Oled 4k monitor shown at the bottom in my 2nd link, but come on it's over $20K. Maybe 5 guys on H forums can buy it. It does, however, completely solve the monitor problems for pc games. Great picture with no backlight bleeding and excellent black levels and contrast.

We have finally come around full circle. CRTs back 20 years ago had great black levels but not the picture of today's flat screens. Now with Sony's 55" Oled the holy grail has been found. We can rest knowing this monitor is the best one we can game on.

I'll show my dad the B&H ad for the monitor and see what he says about the two of us buying it using one of our joint accounts. My name and his are on the accounts and one of them even has my name listed on top above his. And it wouldn't hurt the account much to just buy the damn monitor. Since Dell cancelled their $5,000 30" 4k monitor this is my only option for a large Oled gaming monitor. Edit: Changed my mind, 30" is too small for a 4k monitor for me, going for 40"+ now.

Btw I'm not one of the 5 or few guys on these forums who can buy the $23k monitor outright. My dad has to agree to it first since it's a joint account. Make that I want my dad to agree. I can legally buy it without notifying him but why risk getting disinherited over it.

Edit: Don't want a Oled TV like LG's new models coming out in March. I have it my head that monitors make games look better and there's argument on both sides, I'll stick with the monitor argument.
 
Last edited:
I hope your dad says no, because wasting that much money on that monitor for PC gaming is seriously crazy. If you want to spend $5k on a monitor, do yourself a favor and buy one of the new LG OLED's coming out this spring. Way bigger, 4K, known low input lag (if they follow through on their reports from CES) and with calibration close enough to the performance of the pro Sony monitor.

Or spend a fraction of that on the new ASUS 144hz 4K monitor that is supposed to be coming later this year.
 
InaDaise said:
Ok yeah right Sony makes a 55" Oled 4k monitor shown at the bottom in my 2nd link, but come on it's over $20K. Maybe 5 guys on H forums can buy it. It does, however, completely solve the monitor problems for pc games. Great picture with no backlight bleeding and excellent black levels and contrast.

We have finally come around full circle. CRTs back 20 years ago had great black levels but not the picture of today's flat screens. Now with Sony's 55" Oled the holy grail has been found. We can rest knowing this monitor is the best one we can game on.

I'll show my dad the B&H ad for the monitor and see what he says about the two of us buying it using one of our joint accounts. My name and his are on the accounts and one of them even has my name listed on top above his. And it wouldn't hurt the account much to just buy the damn monitor. Since Dell cancelled their $5,000 30" 4k monitor this is my only option for a large Oled gaming monitor.

Btw I'm not one of the 5 or few guys on these forums who can buy the $23k monitor outright. My dad has to agree to it first since it's a joint account. Make that I want my dad to agree. I can legally buy it without notifying him but why risk getting disinherited over it.

Edit: Don't want a Oled TV like LG's new models coming out in March. I have it my head that monitors make games look better and there's argument on both sides, I'll stick with the monitor argument.
Click to expand...
You don't know if it's the best monitor you can game on. Have you tried it? What is the input lag? You'll be wasting your money. The monitor is for content creation first and foremost. It would be like buying a Tesla for gaming.

If you're concerned about response times then you should look at monitors with black frame insertion like ULMB, which can provide motion clarity that is damn close to a CRT.

You need to get it out of your head that televisions are no good for games. Plenty of people use a TV as a monitor here and across other forums with good results. And frankly, you won't get an image much better in the consumer space over an LG OLED TV at the moment.
 
$5K for a 25" 60 Hz 1080P is just not worth it, I can't see this doing anything much better than the LG OLEDs that makes it worth 3x the cost, for consumer use anyway.
 
These are professional video monitors for Film/TV mastering work, not PC monitors.
That 55" Sony is using an LG panel.
Just buy a 55 B6/C6/E6 instead if you want a 55" OLED for your PC.
Or wait for the 2017 series with improved brightness and further reduced input lag. (But no 3D or curved options)
 
InaDaise said:
Edit: Don't want a Oled TV like LG's new models coming out in March. I have it my head that monitors make games look better and there's argument on both sides, I'll stick with the monitor argument
Click to expand...
Armenius said:
You need to get it out of your head that televisions are no good for games. Plenty of people use a TV as a monitor here and across other forums with good results. And frankly, you won't get an image much better in the consumer space over an LG OLED TV at the moment.
Click to expand...
I really want to emphasize what Armenius is saying. The way I've heard, televisions end up looking a good ways better than monitors half the time. Beyond that, they pack features that you just can't find on monitors, period. And you're not losing much by using them instead of monitors, I can assure you that.
illram said:
I hope your dad says no, because wasting that much money on that monitor for PC gaming is seriously crazy. If you want to spend $5k on a monitor, do yourself a favor and buy one of the new LG OLED's coming out this spring. Way bigger, 4K, known low input lag (if they follow through on their reports from CES) and with calibration close enough to the performance of the pro Sony monitor.

Or spend a fraction of that on the new ASUS 144hz 4K monitor that is supposed to be coming later this year.
Click to expand...
zone74 said:
These are professional video monitors for Film/TV mastering work, not PC monitors.
That 55" Sony is using an LG panel.
Just buy a 55 B6/C6/E6 instead if you want a 55" OLED for your PC.
Or wait for the 2017 series with improved brightness and further reduced input lag. (But no 3D or curved options)
Click to expand...
Corvette said:
So better all around!
Click to expand...
A lot of people here have mentioned LG's new lineup coming out this spring. But I really have to ask, what do they have that the older versions don't? I personally much agree with Zone and Corvette. The loss of a curve and 3D isn't really worth it for better brightness, right? Or is it? I was looking at the curved 55" C6, but was going to buy it after March (so that prices come down a bit). I may just go with the new models if there's reasonable incentive to do so. I'm just not sure if there is.
 
Reduced input lag, IIRC around 21ms? Almost one frame improvement over this years model. Something to ponder if you anticipate gaming on it a lot and don't have one yet and you feel like that makes a difference for you. There may be some other HDR-related gimmicky stuff for 2017 but I haven't looked into it.

If you see a good price on the 2016 sets you won't be disappointed, just make sure you get an E or a C if you're gaming on it. If you want to wait for the 2017 sets, it took until around early summer for the 2016 sets to come down somewhere realistic in price.
 
illram said:
Reduced input lag, IIRC around 21ms? Almost one frame improvement over this years model. Something to ponder if you anticipate gaming on it a lot and don't have one yet and you feel like that makes a difference for you. There may be some other HDR-related gimmicky stuff for 2017 but I haven't looked into it.

If you see a good price on the 2016 sets you won't be disappointed, just make sure you get an E or a C if you're gaming on it. If you want to wait for the 2017 sets, it took until around early summer for the 2016 sets to come down somewhere realistic in price.
Click to expand...
I'm currently looking at a price of $1300 for the 55" curved C6. I feel like it's good, so if I go OLED, it'll be the one.
 
illram said:
Reduced input lag, IIRC around 21ms? Almost one frame improvement over this years model. Something to ponder if you anticipate gaming on it a lot and don't have one yet and you feel like that makes a difference for you. There may be some other HDR-related gimmicky stuff for 2017 but I haven't looked into it.

If you see a good price on the 2016 sets you won't be disappointed, just make sure you get an E or a C if you're gaming on it. If you want to wait for the 2017 sets, it took until around early summer for the 2016 sets to come down somewhere realistic in price.
Click to expand...

HDR is not a gimmick, lol.
 
alienate said:
HDR is not a gimmick, lol.
Click to expand...
I don't mean HDR is a gimmick, I mean for 2017 there may be some insignificant/incremental upgrades primarily used for marketing, which is usual for TV sales year to year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this
Panel said:
I really want to emphasize what Armenius is saying. The way I've heard, televisions end up looking a good ways better than monitors half the time. Beyond that, they pack features that you just can't find on monitors, period. And you're not losing much by using them instead of monitors, I can assure you that.
Click to expand...
Huh, that's funny, I could've sworn HDTVs didn't even have video inputs that supported more than 60 Hz refresh for PC use until very recently, and they certainly don't have G-SYNC.

If anything, HDTVs are the ones that were playing catch-up to what PC monitors were doing years ago. 10 bits per color? Matrox made that a selling point when VGA was still prominent. HD resolutions? The IBM T220/T221 was doing 4K back in 2001, to say nothing of all the 1600x1200 monitors. Variable refresh? It's technically possible over HDMI now, but I'm certainly not seeing them do it. HDR? Okay, you actually got me there, but even current HDTVs can't quite hit the 1000-nit brightness and full Rec. 2020 coverage.

They're also often catered to broadcast TV and movies, often at gaming's expense because of all the input lag you get from processing the signal. Monitor manufacturers know better than to deal with that crap and just get the image on the screen ASAP; it's just too bad you can't get large panels without all the cruft unless you're willing to pay out the nose for "digital signage" displays.

All in all, this is why people don't give HDTVs much consideration for PC gaming, and why sometimes even console gamers favor PC monitors with HDMI inputs instead (much less input lag, really critical for rhythm and fighting games). They'd be paying much more for worse performance.

Anyway, I'm just quietly hoping for a flat-panel to show up that doesn't suck and won't completely destroy my wallet like the current $700-800 1440p AHVA 144-165 Hz G-SYNC offerings will, let alone the new Asus PG27UQ slated to have a whopping $2,000 MSRP. I suppose it's still cheaper than the ol' Sony GDM-FW900's original $2,500 MSRP, though.
 
NamelessPFG said:
Huh, that's funny, I could've sworn HDTVs didn't even have video inputs that supported more than 60 Hz refresh for PC use until very recently.

If anything, HDTVs are the ones that were playing catch-up to what PC monitors were doing years ago. 10 bits per color? Matrox made that a selling point when VGA was still prominent. HD resolutions? The IBM T220/T221 was doing 4K back in 2001, to say nothing of all the 1600x1200 monitors.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about the past. I never mentioned it in my post. I'm talking about what's happening today.
NamelessPFG said:
Variable refresh? It's technically possible over HDMI now, but I'm certainly not seeing them do it.
Click to expand...
You're not seeing them do it because it's an HDMI 2.1 feature, which hasn't been released yet. It was only announced a month ago. Once it's implemented. the largest argument to be made for monitors will disappear.
NamelessPFG said:
HDR? Okay, you actually got me there, but even current HDTVs can't quite hit the 1000-nit brightness and full Rec. 2020 coverage.
Click to expand...
Unless I'm horribly mistaken, they can. And with 2017 displays, we'll likely be seeing numbers above 1000 nits.
NamelessPFG said:
They're also often catered to broadcast TV and movies, often at gaming's expense because of all the input lag you get from processing the signal.
Click to expand...
This is true. TVs do have more input lag than TVs. But now-a-days, TVs have reduced input lag to levels where most people aren't noticing them. And honestly, why should anyone who'd not a truly competitive gamer care about any input lag lower than 25 ms?
NamelessPFG said:
All in all, this is why people don't give HDTVs much consideration for PC gaming
Click to expand...
I feel like I've refuted your arguments quite well. I noticed you keep mentioning HDTVs. The term is technically correct and can still be used, but this makes me feel like you're talking based on an outdated perception of TVs. The problems you've mentioned have largely been corrected in modern TVs.
 
Panel said:
I'm not talking about the past. I never mentioned it in my post. I'm talking about what's happening today.

You're not seeing them do it because it's an HDMI 2.1 feature, which hasn't been released yet. It was only announced a month ago. Once it's implemented. the largest argument to be made for monitors will disappear.

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, they can. And with 2017 displays, we'll likely be seeing numbers above 1000 nits.

This is true. TVs do have more input lag than TVs. But now-a-days, TVs have reduced input lag to levels where most people aren't noticing them. And honestly, why should anyone who'd not a truly competitive gamer care about any input lag lower than 25 ms?

I feel like I've refuted your arguments quite well. I noticed you keep mentioning HDTVs. The term is technically correct and can still be used, but this makes me feel like you're talking based on an outdated perception of TVs. The problems you've mentioned have largely been corrected in modern TVs.
Click to expand...
Maybe my information is largely going from the past, but HDTVs sure took their sweet time catching up on a number of factors to the point where I didn't deem them worth following up on except where large displays were a must. Like you just said, HDMI 2.1 isn't even out yet, and HDMI historically lags well behind DisplayPort in terms of bandwidth and features.

The most recent HDTV we have in the house is a Vizio E420i-A0, which already loses points on not supporting 120 Hz input (thus making its advertised refresh rate completely pointless) and being a "smart" TV that doesn't even have built-in Miracast support, though its perceived input lag in Game Mode is thankfully within the acceptable range. There's also this budget ProScan 4K set my older bro nabbed for cheap at the local Micro Center which has an unacceptable amount of input lag over VGA, and even worse lag over HDMI.

Perhaps the 1000-nit mark has been reached, but I was mainly looking at the OLED side of things, where they only top out in the 600s. FALD-backlit LCDs still don't have the brightness zones as tight as OLEDs do for obvious reasons, which isn't going to do wonders for contrast between adjacent bright and dark areas. As for Rec. 2020, I didn't see any displays with full coverage, not even proof-of-concept ones; DCI-P3 is a smaller overall color space that has been attained in several consumer sets, but Rec. 2020 seems pretty elusive for now. I suppose that'll sort itself out over the next few years as display technology improves.

As for the point about input lag and truly competitive gamers, well, consider that this is [H], and I'm also used to being surrounded by people who play things like Reflex (Q3A/QL spiritual successor) and UT4 pretty seriously (fast-paced arena FPSs, in other words), alongside various fighting games. Competitive gaming is definitely something I take into account when choosing a display, which is difficult when HDTV manufacturers don't make low input lag for gaming a priority. (Case in point: HDR display features adding significantly to input lag in existing sets.) It's not like the days when displays were CRTs by default and input lag just wasn't a thing. However, if I could actually get input lag figures on the aforementioned E420i-A0, that'd be a good estimate to begin with when comparing other displays; I might have to do my own Leo Bodnar lag tester measurements at some point.

Come to think of it, that may be another factor right there - HDTV reviews generally suck compared to what you'd find on a site like TFTCentral, as they're generally nowhere near as in-depth and completely neglect to mention input lag. Fine for home theater videophiles, not so fine for gamers. Perhaps I just need to find the right site that has the information I'm looking for.
 
NamelessPFG said:
Maybe my information is largely going from the past, but HDTVs sure took their sweet time catching up on a number of factors to the point where I didn't deem them worth following up on except where large displays were a must. Like you just said, HDMI 2.1 isn't even out yet, and HDMI historically lags well behind DisplayPort in terms of bandwidth and features.

The most recent HDTV we have in the house is a Vizio E420i-A0, which already loses points on not supporting 120 Hz input (thus making its advertised refresh rate completely pointless) and being a "smart" TV that doesn't even have built-in Miracast support, though its perceived input lag in Game Mode is thankfully within the acceptable range. There's also this budget ProScan 4K set my older bro nabbed for cheap at the local Micro Center which has an unacceptable amount of input lag over VGA, and even worse lag over HDMI.

Perhaps the 1000-nit mark has been reached, but I was mainly looking at the OLED side of things, where they only top out in the 600s. FALD-backlit LCDs still don't have the brightness zones as tight as OLEDs do for obvious reasons, which isn't going to do wonders for contrast between adjacent bright and dark areas. As for Rec. 2020, I didn't see any displays with full coverage, not even proof-of-concept ones; DCI-P3 is a smaller overall color space that has been attained in several consumer sets, but Rec. 2020 seems pretty elusive for now. I suppose that'll sort itself out over the next few years as display technology improves.

As for the point about input lag and truly competitive gamers, well, consider that this is [H], and I'm also used to being surrounded by people who play things like Reflex (Q3A/QL spiritual successor) and UT4 pretty seriously (fast-paced arena FPSs, in other words), alongside various fighting games. Competitive gaming is definitely something I take into account when choosing a display, which is difficult when HDTV manufacturers don't make low input lag for gaming a priority. (Case in point: HDR display features adding significantly to input lag in existing sets.) It's not like the days when displays were CRTs by default and input lag just wasn't a thing. However, if I could actually get input lag figures on the aforementioned E420i-A0, that'd be a good estimate to begin with when comparing other displays; I might have to do my own Leo Bodnar lag tester measurements at some point.

Come to think of it, that may be another factor right there - HDTV reviews generally suck compared to what you'd find on a site like TFTCentral, as they're generally nowhere near as in-depth and completely neglect to mention input lag. Fine for home theater videophiles, not so fine for gamers. Perhaps I just need to find the right site that has the information I'm looking for.
Click to expand...

You have been reading wrong reviews then. FlatpanelsHD, Rtings and HDTVTest do very extensive reviews on televisions. Rtings especially is helpful because its not really a review (very few words are used) and relies on hard numbers and measurements instead, with few opinions mixed in and then it gives individual scores on points where the TV is good or bad at. (movie watching, gaming, maybe all of them)

Although I admit, Rtings is pretty hardcore approach because you have to actually understand what the measurements mean.
 
MaZa said:
Although I admit, Rtings is pretty hardcore approach because you have to actually understand what the measurements mean.
Click to expand...
I mean, they more or less explain them if you click on a particular category, right? I remember reading up on 4:4:4 Chroma on there.
 
NamelessPFG said:
Maybe my information is largely going from the past, but HDTVs sure took their sweet time catching up on a number of factors to the point where I didn't deem them worth following up on except where large displays were a must. Like you just said, HDMI 2.1 isn't even out yet, and HDMI historically lags well behind DisplayPort in terms of bandwidth and features.
Click to expand...
To be fair, this is because TVs were indeed built for TV usage. Not to be used with computers. Only recently have they started to become good options, only due to 4K taking over the market. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to blame them for taking time in catching up when they weren't ever in this particular race to begin with.
NamelessPFG said:
Perhaps I just need to find the right site that has the information I'm looking for.
Click to expand...
MaZA has already mentioned rtings, but I wanna back him up 100% here. It's truly a very handy site.
 
MaZa said:
You have been reading wrong reviews then. FlatpanelsHD, Rtings and HDTVTest do very extensive reviews on televisions. Rtings especially is helpful because its not really a review (very few words are used) and relies on hard numbers and measurements instead, with few opinions mixed in and then it gives individual scores on points where the TV is good or bad at. (movie watching, gaming, maybe all of them)

Although I admit, Rtings is pretty hardcore approach because you have to actually understand what the measurements mean.
Click to expand...
Just took a quick look, and Rtings is exactly what I look for in a display review site. Measurements, pics, and specs all laid out for easy review and comparison.

I wish more consumer electronics review sites were like that. Definitely keeping that one bookmarked!

Panel said:
To be fair, this is because TVs were indeed built for TV usage. Not to be used with computers. Only recently have they started to become good options, only due to 4K taking over the market. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to blame them for taking time in catching up when they weren't ever in this particular race to begin with.

MaZA has already mentioned rtings, but I wanna back him up 100% here. It's truly a very handy site.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not one to have ever really cared for TV use all that much, especially after the Internet became a thing with streaming video.

At that point, TVs were basically "monitors for consoles" in my book, such that I'd pick my TVs around the consoles used. Retro consoles from the 240p/480i age? Got a Trinitron WEGA for that, complete with component input (just need an RGB SCART transcoder). Something more ideal for Xbox with 4:3/16:9 switching and good 480p and 720p handling while packing component input? That's a bit trickier. PS3 and later? Those can just use HDMI monitors like PCs can.

What we're seeing now is a long-overdue convergence, although not an entirely seamless one. I generally don't see DisplayPort on HDTVs, and G-SYNC/FreeSync isn't likely to happen, either.
 
NamelessPFG said:
What we're seeing now is a long-overdue convergence, although not an entirely seamless one. I generally don't see DisplayPort on HDTVs, and G-SYNC/FreeSync isn't likely to happen, either.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I see the two sides coming together. The big deciding factor for me is simply how much better TVs tend to look compared to monitors. That contrast we're seeing nowadays, especially with OLED and upcoming QLEDs, is phenomenal. However, I just hate that they're refusing to make smaller TVs with higher specs. The best ones start at 55", including OLEDs. That's just a weeee bit too huge for normal monitor usage. I do hope we see more TVs with Displayport, or more graphics cards with a lot of HDMI ports.

Of course, some people overlook these issues. Like this baller:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top