40" 5120x2160 LG panel in Q1 2021

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
93
As per this link (https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/lg-display-latest-panel-development-plans-oct-2020/), LG is rumored to make some interesting panels soon. What interested me most was the LM400RW1-SSA1, which is a 40" 5120x2160 IPS panel. For those that are lazy to do the math, this is basically the same PPI as a 32" 4K monitor, but in ultrawide format. That's some nice borderless monitor real estate! Yes yes, maybe that's too much to drive for gaming, but for the productivity people out there, this sounds really enticing.

There are some other panels mentioned that probably already match some existing or upcoming monitors:
  • LM315WR3-SSA1: 32" 4K mini-LED panel with 2000+ dimming zones. This sounds like the panel for the Dell UP3221Q.
  • LM270WQB-SSA1: 27" 2560x1440 240hz IPS panel for Q4 2020 -- gamers will probably like this.
  • LM315QU1-SSA1: 32" 8K panel already in production. It seems to be the successor to the LM315QU1-SSB1, which is probably the panel for the Dell UP3218K. Edit: It seems like the -SSA1 version was a 2017 production; LG also made -SSA2 in 2019, which wasn't even mentioned in the article.
 
Last edited:

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,350
30% more pixels than 4k is going to be tough to drive, but seeing as how this is probably 60Hz, hard pass. I prefer 120+ Hz even for non-gaming work. its just so smooth.
 

DarkSideA8

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
705
As per this link (https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/lg-display-latest-panel-development-plans-oct-2020/), LG is rumored to make some interesting panels soon. What interested me most was the LM400RW1-SSA1, which is a 40" 5120x2160 IPS panel. For those that are lazy to do the math, this is basically the same PPI as a 32" 4K monitor, but in ultrawide format. That's some nice borderless monitor real estate! Yes yes, maybe that's too much to drive for gaming, but for the productivity people out there, this sounds really enticing.

There are some other panels mentioned that probably already match some existing or upcoming monitors:
  • LM315WR3-SSA1: 32" 4K mini-LED panel with 2000+ dimming zones. This sounds like the panel for the Dell UP3221Q.
  • LM270WQB-SSA1: 27" 2560x1440 240hz IPS panel for Q4 2020 -- gamers will probably like this.
  • LM315QU1-SSA1: 32" 8K panel already in production. It seems to be the successor to the LM315QU1-SSB1, which is probably the panel for the Dell UP3218K. Edit: It seems like the -SSA1 version was a 2017 production; LG also made -SSA2 in 2019, which wasn't even mentioned in the article.
An 8k panel at 32? That's really taking advantage of people's ignorance.

It'll sell, tho.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,206
They are really doing it a disservice by making it a 60Hz, apparently no HDR panel. I hope that it is actually higher refresh rate, there is just no excuse for making 60 Hz panels anymore.

32" 8K panel is also a ridiculous thing, why not make a 40" 16:9 of that? Give me a 8K 40-48" panel with capability to run it at 120+ Hz in lower resolutions. Integer scaled 1440p or 4K would work great while your desktop has all the pixels you'll ever need.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,909
That would be my dream size/aspect. I don't like monitors with less than 2160 vertical pixels since I have mixed productivity and gaming uses that can really use the vertical. This is wide, but still maintains enough vertical real estate, and is that between 32" and 48" size that many have been asking for. If only it was > 60hz and had real HDR (not HDR 400) i.e. with some form of local backlight dimming, whether mini led or traditional, this would be perfect. It's also going likely to be megabucks if it has all that.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
93
They are really doing it a disservice by making it a 60Hz, apparently no HDR panel. I hope that it is actually higher refresh rate, there is just no excuse for making 60 Hz panels anymore.

32" 8K panel is also a ridiculous thing, why not make a 40" 16:9 of that? Give me a 8K 40-48" panel with capability to run it at 120+ Hz in lower resolutions. Integer scaled 1440p or 4K would work great while your desktop has all the pixels you'll ever need.
That would be my dream size/aspect. I don't like monitors with less than 2160 vertical pixels since I have mixed productivity and gaming uses that can really use the vertical. This is wide, but still maintains enough vertical real estate, and is that between 32" and 48" size that many have been asking for. If only it was > 60hz and had real HDR (not HDR 400) i.e. with some form of local backlight dimming, whether mini led or traditional, this would be perfect. It's also going likely to be megabucks if it has all that.
Although I also dream of a 40-48" 8K monitor (120hz would be even better, but that exceeds DisplayPort 1.4 with DSC bandwidth, so it would have to use HDMI 2.1 or DisplayPort 2.0 :(), it feels like this won't happen anytime soon, given that:
  1. the vast majority of monitor innovation seems to be targeted at gaming, and resolution is not a priority there, and
  2. for the design and photo/video editing community, monitor innovation seems to be going the route of additional dimming zones over resolution.
This 40" ultrawide would have somewhat similar size and real estate until the higher resolution options become available, so it seems like a good next step for me. Even if this panel doesn't have 120hz, I'm hoping that the size and resolution will gain more traction so that 120hz will come out with the next iteration.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
652
An 8k panel at 32? That's really taking advantage of people's ignorance.

It'll sell, tho.


some of you guys must have never used the 8k Dell 32? It's like looking at a sheet of paper, games look absolutely insane at that resolution. While I got rid of mine cause I couldn't get any cards to run games at 8k, 2021 is a great year to have an 8k monitor with HDMI 2.1 and the RTX 3000 series. Yes it won't hit 120hz, but there is a space for 8k (even more so if that same monitor could do 4k @120hz)


Sign me up for that 40" day 1
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,206
some of you guys must have never used the 8k Dell 32? It's like looking at a sheet of paper, games look absolutely insane at that resolution. While I got rid of mine cause I couldn't get any cards to run games at 8k, 2021 is a great year to have an 8k monitor with HDMI 2.1 and the RTX 3000 series. Yes it won't hit 120hz, but there is a space for 8k (even more so if that same monitor could do 4k @120hz)


Sign me up for that 40" day 1
I'd say the issue is not 8K but it being 32". That is excessively sharp for the size, the Apple XDR 32" 6K is a more spot on res for it but again manufacturers just don't offer that.

Give me a 40-43" 8K and I'm all for it! Integer scaling to 1440p or 4K would solve gaming performance issues too, provided that you could get say 120 Hz 1440p/4K and 8K 60 Hz from the display.
 

steiNetti

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 23, 2020
Messages
82
What's up with all that 8k nonsense?! Unless I'm sitting 1m from a 70+" panel where is the benefit? Especially at 32". I already had to turn up font scaling to 125% on my 43" 4k monitor and it was sharp as feck. At my usual relaxed gaming distance (about 90cm) I couldn't even tell 4k and 1440p apart..

What we need is 4k at 40" for productive work and >100Hz with some form of BFI technology that works with VRR and doesn't hurt our eyes or destroy HDR.

Forget 8k or 1000Hz, as long as BFI tech isn't there it's nice and all, but worthless with pure sample and hold. For anyone that didn't grow up using CRT tech and has never seen a 120Hz CRT - go to a museum and get mind blown. I'm not even kidding here, there is no motion tech that comes even close (120Hz BFI on OLED may be the closest that tech has ever been though). Trust me, you don't need crazy high refresh rates to get clear and smooth motion. 120Hz (or even 100Hz) is absolutely fine - IF it's not pure sample and hold tech. 60Hz BFI just doesn't cut it (I'm one of those sad suckers that could see flicker up to about 100Hz on CRTs and 60Hz really hurts my eyes while my wife doesn't even see any flicker at all at 60Hz..)
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
93
What's up with all that 8k nonsense?! Unless I'm sitting 1m from a 70+" panel where is the benefit? Especially at 32". I already had to turn up font scaling to 125% on my 43" 4k monitor and it was sharp as feck. At my usual relaxed gaming distance (about 90cm) I couldn't even tell 4k and 1440p apart..

What we need is 4k at 40" for productive work and >100Hz with some form of BFI technology that works with VRR and doesn't hurt our eyes or destroy HDR.

Forget 8k or 1000Hz, as long as BFI tech isn't there it's nice and all, but worthless with pure sample and hold. For anyone that didn't grow up using CRT tech and has never seen a 120Hz CRT - go to a museum and get mind blown. I'm not even kidding here, there is no motion tech that comes even close (120Hz BFI on OLED may be the closest that tech has ever been though). Trust me, you don't need crazy high refresh rates to get clear and smooth motion. 120Hz (or even 100Hz) is absolutely fine - IF it's not pure sample and hold tech. 60Hz BFI just doesn't cut it (I'm one of those sad suckers that could see flicker up to about 100Hz on CRTs and 60Hz really hurts my eyes while my wife doesn't even see any flicker at all at 60Hz..)
Everyone’s eyes are different, but I can definitely tell the difference between a 110 dpi monitor and a 220 dpi monitor at ~2 ft away, and everything does look much crisper on the latter! You turned up scaling on your monitor because the visual elements were too small for the resolution, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t look better if you had a higher resolution monitor with even more scaling.
 

ORFJackal

n00b
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
16
Interesting. 39.7" at 21:9 screen ratio means 93x39cm screen area, whereas 39.7" at 16:9 ratio means 88x49cm screen area.

I might accept trading 10cm height for 5cm width and higher DPI. Anyways I seldom have important stuff at the top 7cm. My window arrangement is a text editor/IDE in the middle, 2-3 terminals on left and a browser window on right - with 5cm more width the browser could avoid overlapping with the IDE.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
93
Interesting. 39.7" at 21:9 screen ratio means 93x39cm screen area, whereas 39.7" at 16:9 ratio means 88x49cm screen area.

I might accept trading 10cm height for 5cm width and higher DPI. Anyways I seldom have important stuff at the top 7cm. My window arrangement is a text editor/IDE in the middle, 2-3 terminals on left and a browser window on right - with 5cm more width the browser could avoid overlapping with the IDE.
I definitely like the direction of ultrawides getting bigger! In the absence of a good 36-40” 16:9 getting announced at CES, one of these 40” ultrawides might be my next monitor.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,206
It's basically an ultrawide version of a 32" 16:9 4K screen: http://displaywars.com/32-inch-16x9-vs-40-inch-21x9
Which is one sweet, sweet form factor!

I would expect when using 125% scaling you would get about the same desktop space as the 38" 3840x1600 displays at 100% scale, just with sharper text. 125% if I remember correctly was a pretty reasonable scaling level for 4K 32" 16:9 when I tried one in a store.

I really hope they don't hamper these displays by making them 60 Hz only. 5120x2160 @ 120 Hz would require HDMI 2.1, DP 2.0 or DP 1.4 + DSC.
DP 1.4 with DSC support would be the most obvious way to go. DP 1.4 without DSC is enough for 60 Hz.
This is based on https://tomverbeure.github.io/video_timings_calculator which does not have support for calculating DSC bandwidth but you can make some educated guesses based on the 5120x1440 240 Hz Samsung super ultrawides. Those have roughly 187% bandwidth requirement of DP 1.4 HBR3 whereas 5120x2160 120 Hz is 132%. So with DSC you get them within the bandwidth limits just fine.

If LG can make these with the same level of NanoIPS panels as the current 3840x1600 displays then that would be pretty nice. You could even integer scale 5120x2160 displays at 2560x1080 if you want to emphasize framerate over resolution.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
93
Wait, do we actually have confirmation that it’s 60 Hz? My impression so far has been that we’re all just speculating, without evidence pointing either way.
Yup, it’s pure speculation. But given that 5120x2160 is a pretty rare and high resolution, and that even smaller monitors with this resolution are only 60hz, my educated guess is that the first iteration of this one will be 60hz too. Always hoping to be pleasantly surprised though.
 

DarkSideA8

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
705
Wait, do we actually have confirmation that it’s 60 Hz? My impression so far has been that we’re all just speculating, without evidence pointing either way.
Yup, it’s pure speculation. But given that 5120x2160 is a pretty rare and high resolution, and that even smaller monitors with this resolution are only 60hz, my educated guess is that the first iteration of this one will be 60hz too. Always hoping to be pleasantly surprised though.
Look up tft's October panel release by LG - where they talk about panels in the pipeline. There not a whole lot of high refresh panels
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,206
Wait, do we actually have confirmation that it’s 60 Hz? My impression so far has been that we’re all just speculating, without evidence pointing either way.
The refresh rate was curiously omitted from reports of new panels coming, which lead me to expect that it is only 60 Hz. We don’t know until more info trickles out but I really hope it is at least 120 Hz. 60 Hz should not exist as the max refresh rate on high end monitors anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panel
like this

sob

n00b
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
3
As a productivity user I would welcome a curved 40in capable of 5K2K.
With the added benefit that 5K2K is a nice ratio for movies (unlike existing productivity 49in that have insanely wide ratios).
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
652
omg I am in.. been waiting for that size with higher PPI

You guys can take your peasant 48" CX with 2010 PPI :).

Praying for a glossy screen (And I'd bet we see an Alienware gaming version of this sometime in 2021)
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
57,964
That would be my dream size/aspect. I don't like monitors with less than 2160 vertical pixels since I have mixed productivity and gaming uses that can really use the vertical. This is wide, but still maintains enough vertical real estate, and is that between 32" and 48" size that many have been asking for. If only it was > 60hz and had real HDR (not HDR 400) i.e. with some form of local backlight dimming, whether mini led or traditional, this would be perfect. It's also going likely to be megabucks if it has all that.

It's likely going to be expensive even at 60Hz and with HDR400 or even no HDR at all.
 

sob

n00b
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
3
The Dell availability is sooner than expected, that is good news. No word on the LG version?
 

GNUse_the_force

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
464
When a 1400 - 2000 zone Mini LED version of this is available il be interested. It has to be 120hz at minimum with 10bit support but that shouldn't be too hard with DP1.4 & DSC. In theory using HDMi2.1 something around the 200hz region should be possible.
 
Last edited:

arnbju

n00b
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
18
It does have two Thunderbolt 4 ports as well. I would guess they support DP alternate mode and not just encapsulated DP inside Thunderbolt. Then you can just buy a DP to USB-C cable. But I agree that the HDMI 2.0 port is kind of useless, might be nice for running 3840x2160 with black bars from a console or something else that does not support ultrawide resolution.
 

Cali3350

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
4,696
It does have two Thunderbolt 4 ports as well. I would guess they support DP alternate mode and not just encapsulated DP inside Thunderbolt. Then you can just buy a DP to USB-C cable. But I agree that the HDMI 2.0 port is kind of useless, might be nice for running 3840x2160 with black bars from a console or something else that does not support ultrawide resolution.
Do any monitors just push the video signal through the 40gbps thunderbolt? I actually thought it was always DisplayPort alt-mode.
 

arnbju

n00b
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
18
I am not sure, it is possible at least. From Anandtech about USB4 which is based on Thunderbolt 3.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15752/displayport-alt-mode-20-spec-released said:
As for hardware costs, like Thunderbolt before it, using DisplayPort encapsulation with USB4 means that there needs to be USB4 controllers on both ends of the connection, as well as DisplayPort hardware to actually handle the DisplayPort data. Alt Mode, by contrast, allows for slightly simpler displays and sink devices: those only need DisplayPort hardware, and can forgo the USB4 controllers.

Titan Ridge TB3 controllers seem to be capable of 2 DP1.4 streams (8 lanes) as long as the combined bandwidth is less than 40Gbps.

Edit: found some more stuff

The Lenovo monitor has 2 TB4 ports, which means it uses a Intel JHL8540 TB4 Controller (Maple Ridge).
That supports both DP1.4a encapsulated and DP1.4a in Alt mode.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/16333/intel-maple-ridge-thunderbolt-4-controller-now-shipping

Edit2: Maple Ridge is the host TB controller, the device controller is Goshen Ridge (JHL8440). It still supports DP1.4 in both encapsulated and alt mode.
 
Last edited:

AgentQ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Messages
1,581
The Lenovo Thunderbolt monitor looks great.

I buy monitors with built-in KVM so I can switch between my gaming PC and my Mac laptop for work. Thunderbolt allows for 1-cable connection to the laptop for charging, display, and peripherals. The Thunderbolt 4 monitors even allow daisy-chaining, so you could in theory connect two of those monitors with a single cable.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,909
Hm... quite tempting for the lenovo as a productivity monitor. Just a bit steep for the features, I feel like. I know we're going to see a raft of mini-LED and other lighting techniques ( like in the linked BOE sheet) that will give us contrast and punch approaching OLED as well higher refresh rate in the next 24 months, but waiting for the perfect monitor just feels like a "forever on the horizon" treadmill. I need a new monitor to replace this 48" TV soon (as awesome as that is in its own way) :(
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,206
Hm... quite tempting for the lenovo as a productivity monitor. Just a bit steep for the features, I feel like. I know we're going to see a raft of mini-LED and other lighting techniques ( like in the linked BOE sheet) that will give us contrast and punch approaching OLED as well higher refresh rate in the next 24 months, but waiting for the perfect monitor just feels like a "forever on the horizon" treadmill. I need a new monitor to replace this 48" TV soon (as awesome as that is in its own way) :(
The display industry is a horrible thing where things advance in baby steps and take forever to come to market. At least these seem to be quickly coming down in cost so maybe in a few years we see a 120+ Hz version.

I also really wish that displays supported using lower resolutions at higher refresh rates like some TVs do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sethk
like this

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,909
The display industry is a horrible thing where things advance in baby steps and take forever to come to market. At least these seem to be quickly coming down in cost so maybe in a few years we see a 120+ Hz version.

I also really wish that displays supported using lower resolutions at higher refresh rates like some TVs do.
Yes, that's it exactly. I use 2816x1584@120 today over HDMI 2.0 on the 48" as an example of a display that came out before HDMI 2.1, and it looks great in games (if very slightly soft, almost like a filter) but is much better looking than 1080p and I prefer the buttery smooth gameplay over 4k60.
For these new displays, I would take both 5k X 2160 @ 100hz or 3840x1600 @120 as an option even if it can't do native res @ 120 HDR over HDMI (I suspect it probably can though, with HDR if it was using DSC).
The one nice thing about these monitors is they can accept 4k60 resolution without losing information (obviously black bars on the side) for the new consoles. I finally got a PS5 direct from Sony and will hunt down a XSX at some point but I want a monitor that can do as good a job playing console games as a regular 4k HDR TV as well as function better as a monitor!
 

UnknownSouljer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2001
Messages
7,029
The display industry is a horrible thing where things advance in baby steps and take forever to come to market.
This is for the most part a problem with the buyers than it is people in the industry. The stuff that sells is basically $300 and below and frankly even $500 is pushing it for >90% of the market.
I created a thread for the Acer Nitro XV273k and there was virtually no response to it despite it, in my opinion, ticking all the boxes (except perhaps not being 32" over 27"). 4k, 120Hz (144Hz in some configs overclocked), 10-bit, IPS, Freesync/Gsync + LFC, 90% DCI-P3 (rated over 97%+ in actual testing) and good uniformity. The only reason I can see why that is, again is price (or perhaps 32" - but again considering there were no other option on the market - again, price). Most people don't spend $900 on a monitor let alone $2000 to attain the Predator X27 to get GSync + HDR10 with FALD. (In fact you can see in the thread people complaining about wanting other stuff or more for less - even some saying there is more coming at CES - and all of it turned out to be vaporware - the thread is from 2019).

The professional market moves forward at a reasonable rate because that market is "okay" with paying $10k+ for a monitor. But they produce "specs" that as is noted here in this thread, the gaming market doesn't care about - most people in here are complaining that 60Hz anything is unacceptable in 2021, when most people working in the photo/video, scientific, medical, and industrial industries literally couldn't care less if their display is greater than 60Hz (if a monitor has that, great, but that isn't a spec that sells them a display). If gamers (and by that, I mean a great majority) actually by in large cared to spend $2000 on monitors, there would probably be more 32", 4k, 144Hz, HDR10, Freesync 2/Gysnc Ultimate, Micro LED/OLED/FALD models just lying around. But again, that's the realm of enthusiasts. Most even so-called gamers spend less than $1000 total on their entire system, monitor included. And if they splurge, they aren't adding additional money to the monitor - it's usually going to video card or processor upgrades. The point is, high end gaming displays are super niche as compared to the industry at large and they sell too low volume to want or desire for manufacturers to put any risk into. And I don't foresee that changing any time soon.
I think TV's will change a bit, as ironically it's the PS5 and XSX that are moving display manufacturers wanting to support HDMI 2.1 and 120Hz features that both of those consoles "support". But we'll see. Most TV's these days getting sold in any volume are from Chinese manufacturers selling things that are big and cheap and $500 or less (eg: Vizio, TCL, etc).
 
Last edited:

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,206
T
This is for the most part a problem with the buyers than it is people in the industry. The stuff that sells is basically $300 and below and frankly even $500 is pushing it for >90% of the market.
I created a thread for the Acer Nitro XV273k and there was virtually no response to it despite it, in my opinion, ticking all the boxes (except perhaps not being 32" over 27"). 4k, 120Hz (144Hz in some configs overclocked), 10-bit, IPS, Freesync/Gsync + LFC, 90% DCI-P3 (rated over 97%+ in actual testing) and good uniformity. The only reason I can see why that is, again is price (or perhaps 32" - but again considering there were no other option on the market - again, price). Most people don't spend $900 on a monitor let alone $2000 to attain the Predator X27 to get GSync + HDR10 with FALD. (In fact you can see in the thread people complaining about wanting other stuff or more for less - even some saying there is more coming at CES - and all of it turned out to be vaporware - the thread is from 2019).

The professional market moves forward at a reasonable rate because that market is "okay" with paying $10k+ for a monitor. But they produce "specs" that as is noted here in this thread, the gaming market doesn't care about - most people in here are complaining that 60Hz anything is unacceptable in 2021, when most people working in the photo/video, scientific, medical, and industrial industries literally couldn't care less if their display is greater than 60Hz (if a monitor has that, great, but that isn't a spec that sells them a display). If gamers (and by that, I mean a great majority) actually by in large cared to spend $2000 on monitors, there would probably be more 32", 4k, 144Hz, HDR10, Freesync 2/Gysnc Ultimate, Micro LED/OLED/FALD models just lying around. But again, that's the realm of enthusiasts. Most even so-called gamers spend less than $1000 total on their entire system, monitor included. And if they splurge, they aren't adding additional money to the monitor - it's usually going to video card or processor upgrades. The point is, high end gaming displays are super niche as compared to the industry at large and they sell too low volume to want or desire for manufacturers to put any risk into. And I don't foresee that changing any time soon.
I think TV's will change a bit, as ironically it's the PS5 and XSX that are moving display manufacturers wanting to support HDMI 2.1 and 120Hz features that both of those consoles "support". But we'll see. Most TV's these days getting sold in any volume are from Chinese manufacturers selling things that are big and cheap and $500 or less (eg: Vizio, TCL, etc).

There is currently a massive premium associated with FALD on monitors. That driver the cost of those beyond even LG OLEDs. You have a lot more options for less money if you take HDR off the table. I think people balk when they see the same thing with good HDR doubles the price but by comparison something like the super ultrawide Samsung G9 seems to be pretty popular right now because people feel they get a lot of screen for their money.

As for refresh rate, it annoys me to have to use 60 Hz on my MBP for work. While you can certainly live with 60 Hz just fine, when you are used to 120 Hz it's just noticeably worse. It's really annoying that it's still not the standard. I think it's selling it a bit short as "professionals not caring about it" when the option simply does not exist in monitors intended for say professional color grading stuff.

The "average person" buys whatever is cheap and on sale and we can just disregard them when it comes to enthusiast or professional gear.
 
Top