42" OLED MASTER THREAD

Murzilka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,097
Dell 2405FPW, the first 24" LCD monitor, too I bought when it was released (2005?) for about 1200€. That started having image retention
Aha!!!! IPS is a dud because of the burn-in issues! rumors are true! Stay away from ips unless your up to exchanging it every 2 years, at least! Or five years!

Awaiting clarification on burn-in vs image retention.
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,402
Anyone else with a PG42UQ have some form of failure related to Displayport? My friends is now showing horizontal lines across the screen using DP.

Makes me suspicious that they've been pulled from sale. Newegg listing is gone and previous item# just shows out of stock like an EOL product. Asus website no longer shows a list of retailers where to buy.
if there is a recall, what can Asus do? I notice the 48" is in the same boat. This is not something a firmware can fix. Are they going to just discontinue the product? what normally happen to a product after a recall
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,805
if there is a recall, what can Asus do? I notice the 48" is in the same boat. This is not something a firmware can fix. Are they going to just discontinue the product? what normally happen to a product after a recall
They might make a repair/replacement program for existing units and release a new revision with a new model number.
 

Baenwort

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
199
While I agree with the sentiment, I really love the 42” size of the C2. I had a nice 32” 4K display previously and thought it was enough, but the 42” has really grown on me. I wouldn’t want it any larger though! I feel it’s at the upper limit of an ideal display size for desktop use. 32” definitely feels a bit cramped now - I wouldn’t want to go back to it even if offered in an OLED panel. Perhaps something like 36” to 40” would work, but 32” just isn’t enough anymore, at least for me.

I have a range of displays. I use a 55" trouchboard at work for training groups. A 30" at my desk at work (when I get to sit down). And a pair of 24" monitors at home.

It all depends on what space you have and what you are doing.

At home I have to work from a built-in desk that is 142 years old so 32" is my Max size (I'm less than arms length). At my desk at the office I'll likely go up to 42" next time we upgrade monitors (10 year cycle on them and I've got ~2 more years to wait). For the touchboard I'd love bigger but we got these 3 years ago so hopefully by the time we replace them we'll be using AR goggles!

So I'm excited for 32 inch advancements. However, I need Simone with more time and better writing skills to start the new thread. :D
 

aznpotpie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,257
Anyone else with a PG42UQ have some form of failure related to Displayport? My friends is now showing horizontal lines across the screen using DP.

Makes me suspicious that they've been pulled from sale. Newegg listing is gone and previous item# just shows out of stock like an EOL product. Asus website no longer shows a list of retailers where to buy.
Don't have the horizontal line issue however my DP port on two out of the six that I have are having issues coming back from sleep. This is all with the same FW.
 

aznpotpie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,257
And I'm not sure how or what happened but one of my PG42UQ has burn in with about 300 hours on it.
EA1ECA57-A9AD-4DCD-ABC6-6BC95D86D1F6.jpeg
 

undertaker2k8

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
1,940
And I'm not sure how or what happened but one of my PG42UQ has burn in with about 300 hours on it.View attachment 516795
Based on what I've seen so far it seems Asus got the shittiest runt of the litter 42 panels from LG and is trying to pull a fast one by adding a few PC specific features. Based on my experience with the 42C2, I'd go that route if you want a 42" panel, period, it had no obvious panel flaws.
 

aznpotpie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
1,257
Based on what I've seen so far it seems Asus got the shittiest runt of the litter 42 panels from LG and is trying to pull a fast one by adding a few PC specific features. Based on my experience with the 42C2, I'd go that route if you want a 42" panel, period, it had no obvious panel flaws.
It's really random, 3 of my PG42UQ are definitely cleaner then the 3 42" C2s that I have.
 

Happy Hopping

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,402
I have a range of displays. I use a 55" trouchboard at work for training groups. A 30" at my desk at work (when I get to sit down). And a pair of 24" monitors at home.

It all depends on what space you have and what you are doing.

At home I have to work from a built-in desk that is 142 years old so 32" is my Max size (I'm less than arms length). At my desk at the office I'll likely go up to 42" next time we upgrade monitors (10 year cycle on them and I've got ~2 more years to wait). For the touchboard I'd love bigger but we got these 3 years ago so hopefully by the time we replace them we'll be using AR goggles!

So I'm excited for 32 inch advancements. However, I need Simone with more time and better writing skills to start the new thread. :D
what does a 142 yr. old desk looks like ? and how do you know it's 142?
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
While I agree with the sentiment, I really love the 42” size of the C2. I had a nice 32” 4K display previously and thought it was enough, but the 42” has really grown on me. I wouldn’t want it any larger though! I feel it’s at the upper limit of an ideal display size for desktop use. 32” definitely feels a bit cramped now - I wouldn’t want to go back to it even if offered in an OLED panel. Perhaps something like 36” to 40” would work, but 32” just isn’t enough anymore, at least for me.

It's all about PPD and viewing angle as it relates to view distance.

42" or 48" 16:9 OLEDs require a considerable viewing distance to be viewed appropriately which usually means mounting them on their own slim spined floor-foot stand, wall mount, or another desk surface/bench/hutch/shelf unless you are willing to compromise a lot on how large or aggressive the pixel structure/fringing/aliasing is along with sitting too close to a wall viewing angle wise.

A 42" compared to a 48" doesn't change those distances much at all until you get to the ~ 80 PPD point where it is a difference of 6", but you'd still be sitting 41" away from the 42" screen by that 80 PPD point.

The ~ 29" view distance for 60PPD on a 42" might be enough to squeeze in space wise in an exceptionally large desk, but it's only ~4" difference from the 48" at 60PPD so it might come down to your room and mounting options.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Text Fringing and Graphics Aliasing vs. PPD

Aside from the WOLED subpixel layout on LG OLEDS, which non-traditional sub sampling, greyscale subsampling, etc can help with a bit - -

a lot of people are also sitting way too close to large OLEDs, trying to make them work at a tradtitional "up against the wall like a bookshelf" or "upright piano with sheet music" type set up - which makes the pixel structure more granular and large (as well as the subpixels). It also provides a poor viewing angle for huds, pointers, notifications and side text boxes, etc. - pushing the extents of the screen outside of your human viewpoint more and more the closer you sit.

In my experience, (at default text and interface, menu, etc. sizes) no amount of text subsampling will be able to compensate enough vs text fringing on the desktop, or AA vs aliasing in games, once you dip below around ~ 60PPD.

.........................................

60 PPD , 64 deg viewing angle at 4k <--- pushes the extents of the screen outside of human viewpoint a bit

48" 4k screen at ~ 33.5" away

42" 4k screen at ~ 29" away



80 PPD , 48 deg viewing angle at 4k <--- forms an ~equilaterial triangle/pyramid viewing angle with the screen as the base.

48" 4k screen at ~ 47" away

42" 4k screen at ~ 41" away
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
the 42” has really grown on me. I wouldn’t want it any larger though! I feel it’s at the upper limit of an ideal display size for desktop use.

To me a 42" or 48" screen is a little too large for up against the wall like a bookshelf / upright player piano+sheetmusic type setups all things considered. Unless it's a huge diagonal corner desk like an interion or something. 42" 4k screen at 60PPD to 80PPD ~> 29" to 41" view distance, also remaining reasonable viewing angles vs the screen size at those distances.

I do like larger screens for a more spaced media/gaming station or command center type setup though. I think a 32" 16:9 is prob near best for tighter, more traditional up close desktop setups, centrally.

For me, being open to sitting farther away in a more spaced setup, I think 1000R curved 55" 8k screen would probably be a good ratio of factors. 1000R = 1000mm radius of focal point of the curve = ~ 39.5" view distance. At 8k when sitting at the focal point of that curve you would be getting 120PPD+. (By comparison the 55" ark with it's very high price tag and suffering some shortcomings is ~61+ PPD at the 1000R radius/focal point of the curve). A large 8k would allow for 4k rez quadrants/windows, high ppd ultrawide resolutions incl even 32:9, size-immersion factor with high PPD, etc. Prob would have to use DLSS or other upscaling of 4k for frame rates though, even on the gpus that would prob be available by then.
 
Last edited:

Baenwort

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
199
what does a 142 yr. old desk looks like ? and how do you know it's 142?

The age of the house (built 1879 per land records) and that the desk is built into the wall and the wall still has the original limestone plaster and horse hair. (Found that out when I ran power for a new outlet)

It looks old and brown. Kinda shiney but that is because someone over varnished it at some point instead of stripping and doing it right when it got a bit of water damage at some time.

Otherwise it is like other desks. Flat on top, drawers on both sides of a open box shape, bookshelves behind and a 20s to 50s hanging light fixture and a pipe stub (for old gas lamp) sticking out of the wall. No other light except for the window next to it. I took out part of one of the shelves above it to make enough room for the current monitors. Not enough room under it for a good Aeon so I use a big yoga ball.
 

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
3,027
Is anybody else finding it odd, or well "odd," that the 42 inch C2 is presently the price as the 48 inch on Amazon without there being any special sales beyond the basic price drops over time?
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,316
Is anybody else finding it odd, or well "odd," that the 42 inch C2 is presently the price as the 48 inch on Amazon without there being any special sales beyond the basic price drops over time?

Not really. During 2020 the 48 inch CX costed more than the 55 inch CX the entire time the two were up for sale. During 2021 the prices of the 48 and 55 C1 were either the same or within $100 of each other.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,632
Is anybody else finding it odd, or well "odd," that the 42 inch C2 is presently the price as the 48 inch on Amazon without there being any special sales beyond the basic price drops over time?
Supply/Demand.

The more 'monitor like' OLEDs have more potential market. The larger ones are 'only' TVs.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
Is anybody else finding it odd, or well "odd," that the 42 inch C2 is presently the price as the 48 inch on Amazon without there being any special sales beyond the basic price drops over time?

...........................................................


42" isn't that much view distance difference from 48" really. It all comes down to PPD.

42" screen at 60PPD view distance (ends up being ~ 4.5" less) at 29" view distance

42" screen at 80PPD view distance (ends up being ~ 6" less) at ~ 41" view distance.

Might make a difference if you had a particularly large desk that was borderline by 5 or 6 inches to squeeze it in, but most people are just viewing their large 4k screens much too close and trying to make them work at traditional nearer "up against the wall like a bookshelf", "upright piano + sheet music" style desk setups which drives the PPD down and pushes the extents of the screen more grossly outside of their human viewpoint.

Once you sit closer than 60PPD on a large screen you aren't only pushing the screen more and more outside of your human viewpoint but you are driving the PPD back down to PPD ranges of 2560x1440 at traditional desk distances instead of 60 - 80 ppd that 4k should be getting at reasonable viewing angles.

2560x1440 at 18" = ~39 PPD

2560x1440 at 24" = ~ 49 PPD

2560x1440 at 26" = ~ 53 PPD

...

Unless you are willing to have a more spaced setup, decoupling your screen from your desk with any one of a variety of mounting option including simple metal rail spined tv stands with a floor foot or caster wheels, wall mount, pole mount, or seperate desk/bench/pillar to sit it on. Unless you perhaps spring for an exceptionally large desk like an interion that has a huge diagonal.



....

That was more about view distance of a 42" vs 48" but still relevant.

60 PPD

55" 4k screen at ~ 38.5" away
48" 4k screen at ~ 33.5" away
42" 4k screen at ~ 29" away

80 PPD

55" 4k screen at ~ 54" away
48" 4k screen at ~ 47" away
42" 4k screen at ~ 41" away

You can see that if you are already sitting at the farther 80PPD distance with a 42" or 48" 4k screen, you are already past the 60PPD point on a 55" 4k, so even a 55" 'TV' is doable if you have the space and can decouple the screen from your desk dimensions with mounting options.

At the nearer 60PPD apples to apples, you are going from 29" - 34" on the 42 and 48, up to almost 39" view distance for a 55" though so if you haven't already set up for longer distance like the 80PPD ranges for 42, 48, - it'd be a lot farther for you to move apart.

.................................

When I got my 48" cx I had considered a 55" CX that was on sale because a the time it was actually cheaper than the 48CX.
At 60 PPD you'd be going from ~ 34" to 39" away, so under 3' to just over 3'.
At 80PPD you are however going from under 4' away to 4.5' which is a good difference of ~7".

....................................

The gap between the desk and screen surface you had a large separate desk can help to visualize the spacing. These measurements are considering the near edge of your desk to the surface of the screen for the PPD rather than your eyeballs so there could be a little variance of some inches.

60 PPD 42":
29"deep desk = potentially zero gap to a few inches, 24"deep desk = ~ 5" gap

60 PPD 48":
29" deep desk = 4.5" gap, 24" deep desk = 9.5" gap

60 PPD 55":
29" deep desk = 9.5" gap, 24" deep desk = 15.5" gap

80 PPD 42":
29" deep desk = 12" gap (1 foot), 24" deep desk = 18" gap (1.5 feet)

80 PPD 48":
29" deep desk = 18" gap (1.5 feet), 24" deep desk = 24" gap (2 feet)

80 PPD 55":
29" deep desk = 25" gap (2 feet+), 24" deep desk = 30" gap (2.5 feet)


...................................................

I was actually looking at the samsung ark's specs and user reviews/reports - but not at that kind of price and the issues and tradeoffs involved with that screen. With it's 1000R curve it has a 1000mm radius or focal point of the curve which is~ 38.5". The difference between the flat 55" is that when you sit at that distance all points on the screen horizontally are equidistant from you and you can see the whole screen. It gets around 61+ PPD at that distance so you don't really have the wiggle room to sit closer without suffering text fringing and graphics aliasing more like 1440p in the first quote. I'd definitely be interested in that curve on a 8k screen someday though if it ever happens but I'd prefer OLED for media and gaming til microled years.

..................................................................................................
 
Last edited:

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
Wake me up when we get 4K OLED at 160Hz+

View attachment 517540

The motion articulation and smoothness aspect has diminishing returns after a point. And online gaming advantage (as opposed to testing in LAN gaming or vs bots), due to online gaming being online obviously - with online's limitations along with online gaming's server code methods, is just marketing other than the blur reduction aspect maybe letting you see a little clearer. It's falsely marketed as a 1:1 relationship to online gaming/servers.

Depending on your game and settings, 120fps and higher is pretty good for now at 4k imo. I don't think we'll get more appreciable sample and hold blur reduction until 240fpsHz and really 480fpsHz is where it really starts to look less hazy blur wise.

Note that these pursuit camera images are using the frame rate *minimums*... not averages. Your low end would have to be at these rates.

....................................

The higher you go over 120fps even on a 120hz screen, the more you bring the bottom end of the fps graph up. So maybe you were getting 80 to 90 fps on a 4k 120Hz screen before. Those graphs would be on a roller coaster. 80fps average could go down to (50) 65fpsHz regularly throughout the curve. 90fps could go down to (60) 75fpsHz regularly throughout the curve. Going above 120fps average will have an appreciable difference even on a 120Hz screen.


...............................

I think in the very long run they will have to do more and more frame insertion tech wise along with DLSS upscaling. Graphics demands are just going to get higher and with 8k and eventually more detailed and FX filled games with long view distances and animated objects in the distance. That and raytracing.

Theoretically up to 1000Hz with something like 100fps x10 (or 125fps x 8, etc.) with insertion/duplication/interpolation ~> 1000fps at 1000hz ~> 1px or essentially 'zero' sample and hold blur.
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,316
The motion articulation and smoothness aspect has diminishing returns after a point. And online gaming advantage (as opposed to testing in LAN gaming or vs bots), due to online gaming being online obviously - with online's limitations along with online gaming's server code methods, is just marketing other than the blur reduction aspect maybe letting you see a little clearer. It's falsely marketed as a 1:1 relationship to online gaming/servers.

Depending on your game and settings, 120fps and higher is pretty good for now at 4k imo. I don't think we'll get more appreciable sample and hold blur reduction until 240fpsHz and really 480fpsHz is where it really starts to look less hazy blur wise.

Note that these pursuit camera images are using the frame rate *minimums*... not averages. Your low end would have to be at these rates.


....................................

The higher you go over 120fps even on a 120hz screen, the more you bring the bottom end of the fps graph up. So maybe you were getting 80 to 90 fps on a 4k 120Hz screen before. Those graphs would be on a roller coaster. 80fps average could go down to (50) 65fpsHz regularly throughout the curve. 90fps could go down to (60) 75fpsHz regularly throughout the curve. Going above 120fps average will have an appreciable difference even on a 120Hz screen.


...............................

I think in the very long run they will have to do more and more frame insertion tech wise along with DLSS upscaling. Graphics demands are just going to get higher and with 8k and eventually more detailed and FX filled games with long view distances and animated objects in the distance. That and raytracing.

Theoretically up to 1000Hz with something like 100fps x10 (or 125fps x 8, etc.) with insertion/duplication/interpolation ~> 1000fps at 1000hz ~> 1px or essentially 'zero' sample and hold blur.

It's not just about the reduction to sample and hold motion blur. 160fps simply feels a lot smoother and more responsive to play on than 120fps, period. Not talking any competitive advantages or anything like that, it's just a more enjoyable experience overall with higher frame rates. I could also use DLSS 3.0 to boost those frame rates higher even though the input latency penalty is there because I'm mostly just playing single player games and not competitive online shooters anyway. The GPU is now clearly capable of delivering such an experience so I'm waiting for a proper display to pair it with. No more 120Hz displays for me.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
No more 120Hz displays for me.

Understandable. I was the same way about hdmi 2.1 and (real) HDR. Now also no edge-lit desktop gaming displays and perhaps not even LCD+FALD - I don't think I could go back to any LCD for my main gaming/media display or living room TV. We all look to the next advancements vs tradeoffs, like me for a big 8k curved screen (where I could tile different games and apps or go fullscreen) but there are no 8k oleds of smaller (55" and less) size and reasonable enthusiast price ranges and that's probably not going to change for a few years at least. The best I could prob get is a 42" 4k curved OLED at some point though I'd prefer 1000R 48" 4k for greater full screen immersion sitting at the focal point of the curve. Higher Hz would be a bonus. Higher Hz OLEDs should happen eventually just like everything. OLED definitely has the response time, even to theoretically hit 1000 Hz (most likely requiring massive frame insertion/interpolation).

Still I think breaching 120fps point for the more demanding games that were considerably lower at 4k, and bringing the bottom end and demanding parts of a game's frame rate graphs up from where they may have been 60 - 75fpsHz (or even lower on the most demanding/least optimized games 🤮) before is an appreciable gain for now. Frame rate averages typically dip minus 15 to 30 fps throughout the graph and often in the most demanding parts of a game with lots of FX, firefights, battles, # of on screen entitites, view distances + animated objects in distance. The new flagship gpu is potentially bringing 1/3 to 2/3 of your frame rate graph out of the molasses depending on the average frame rate of the game before.
 
Last edited:

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,089
Digital Foundry states that with VRR + DLSS3, framecaps do not work or cause visual issues so any FPS achieved over your displays refresh rate will tear.

All the more reason we need higher refresh rate 4K displays. Still have no clue why they shipped this GPU with DP 1.4.

Edit: yeah Nvidia does not recommend frame caps or Vsync when using DLSS3. It's VRR or Vsync off only for it to work properly.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,316
Digital Foundry states that with VRR + DLSS3, framecaps do not work or cause visual issues so any FPS achieved over your displays refresh rate will tear.

All the more reason we need higher refresh rate 4K displays. Still have no clue why they shipped this GPU with DP 1.4.

Edit: yeah Nvidia does not recommend frame caps or Vsync when using DLSS3. It's VRR or Vsync off only for it to work properly.

That Neo G8 is looking very tempting right now with it's 240Hz refresh rate for DLSS 3. But with LG set to release 27 and 32 inch OLED monitors soon and combined with the G8's scanline and matte coating issues I just can't justify getting one right now. Of course we'll need to wait and see what the resolution/Hz of these OLED monitors is going to be.

https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-producing-mid-size-woled-panels-demand-tvs-declines

"LGD will start producing 27-inch WOLED panels as early as by the end of October, targeting small TVs and gaming monitors. LGE will be LGD's first customer, and it plans to release its 27-inch OLED display in Q1 2023.

LGD also plans to introduce a larger 32" WOLED panel, which will enter production towards the end of 2022."
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,805
Still have no clue why they shipped this GPU with DP 1.4.
I really hope it is a similar case as they had with the 1000 series where they could be UEFI patched from DP 1.3 to 1.4.

Sure, DP 1.4 with DSC is probably going to be good enough with this GPU until we start to see DP 2.0 displays on the market (which could be several years knowing the glacial pace of the display industry) so maybe Nvidia is banking on that, but it's an annoying limitation when they have such a beast of a GPU that should be good quite a bit into the future.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
I think they shipped the nvidia 2000 series without hdmi 2.1 when it was on tvs and consoles so doesn't sound too surprising. So hdmi 2.1 is still relatively recent on nvidia gpus. Also did a gen without 4k 60hz capability then released new very near gen with it, etc. There have been features locked behind gens as well, even without hardware limitations.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

As someone else hinted at in another thread (I forget who, might have been one of the last two people replying here)
< edit, it was sharknice >

... bandwidth wise, they could theoretically put frame insertion and DLSS hardware on the displays themselves like they did with g-sync modules. That would be a way to get around the bandwidth limit.

For example:

- send the display a 1440p 120fps (solid) 120hz signal and have nvidia hardware on the display do DLSS upscale of it to 4k + do frame insertion to say x2 for 240Hz (or x3 for 360hz, etc).

or

- send the display a 4k 120fps (solid) 120hz signal and have nvidia hardware on the display do DLSS upscale of it to 8k on an 8k screen + do frame insertion to say x2 for 240Hz (or x3 for 360hz, etc).


Not that they are going to, just something to think about as resolution and especially Hz could get more extreme in the future.
 
Last edited:

SoCali

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
1,089
That Neo G8 is looking very tempting right now with it's 240Hz refresh rate for DLSS 3. But with LG set to release 27 and 32 inch OLED monitors soon and combined with the G8's scanline and matte coating issues I just can't justify getting one right now. Of course we'll need to wait and see what the resolution/Hz of these OLED monitors is going to be.

https://www.oled-info.com/lg-display-start-producing-mid-size-woled-panels-demand-tvs-declines

"LGD will start producing 27-inch WOLED panels as early as by the end of October, targeting small TVs and gaming monitors. LGE will be LGD's first customer, and it plans to release its 27-inch OLED display in Q1 2023.

LGD also plans to introduce a larger 32" WOLED panel, which will enter production towards the end of 2022."
Yeah I'm waiting for a better 32" option but for now I'll keep using the Neo G8 as a stop gap. Its going to be 1.5 years from now before that 32" OLED monitor can actually be purchased and by then we'll be at the next gen GPU doorstep again. The feel and smoothness north of 160FPS is really rough to come down from.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
7,030
And nothing indicates that those future LGD desktop monitor sized OLEDs will be 4K and high refresh. They are still pumping out 120 Hz crap.
 

elvn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
4,587
It's always been tradeoffs on different displays. Pick your poison but you'll be drinking some poison no matter what you pick. Definitely have room for improvement across the board. Always something to look forward to (or to complain about in the meantime). :cool:
 
Top