Did Rting.com Under Rate the review On X900E for PC Monitor ?

V

vincentsixtysix

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
82
SONY 900E ,

I think rtings.com has given poor ratings to this monitor -- a total of , as a 7.6 -- for a pc monitor. and i can see why that would be bc the Input lag is in the 30's.

so gamers might not find this tv useful, but for those who are after productivity work/ and just use read excels and heavy texts filled webpages all day . -this monitor would be even better than the 800e or the c7 ( both of which have a higher ratings )

this display on 900e should result in a much finer sharper images for a pc monitor than the other options because

a) it has full array direct LED lit , whereas most are including the 720e/800e are side or edge lit panels.

b) its a VA panel so the constrast will be about 3000:1 x vs 1000:1 IPS as on the 720e

c) it is PWM Free

d) Brightness is 3X that of the 720e as well !


So Overall, I think the ratings for this as a PC monitor is Very underrated.... Any thoughts ?

Its currently 900 $ for the 49 inch version which is 1/2 cheaper than any OLED option.
 
Last edited:
I have the 49" version. According to Rtings it is PWM free above 8/50 on the brightness slider so I've been keeping mine above that. It is VA so make sure you're pretty much directly in front of it. Mine is on my desk so not much of an issue for me.

As a nice bonus it does native 120hz @ 1080p as well (no interpolation) with pretty low input lag. I play BF1 on mine occasionally at 120hz. I just up the resolution scale in game because things are pretty pixelated at that resolution.

Definitely happy with it overall, it really has excellent picture quality.
 
I can't say much about it vs other brands. I just bought the Sony, didn't compare it against any competitors. I use mine almost exclusively for gaming so I can't really comment on the productivity side of things either.

I previously had the Sony XBR43X800D and I think 43" is a more ideal size. That's personal preference of course but I have my 49" pushed as far away from me as I can get it on a corner desk and I still feel like it's too big at times. If they made a 43" version with full array local dimming like the 49" I would buy that in a heartbeat.
 
when I get mine I plan to stick it on to a vesa mount stand so that I can adjust the distance far back as possible. but I agree 49 is just too big. even 43 is pushing the limits lol
 
do you think there is a way you can turn on the over scan maybe and have the screen only display for the 43 in instead ?
 
VA doesn't just come with increased contrast, it also comes with terrible dark pixel transition times upwards of 50ms in some cases that causes visible dark trailing. IMO VA panels only make good monitors with strobed backlighting solutions.

Of course that is my personal opinion but I think this is the reason that VA panels are uncommon in PC monitors except when used in combination with strobed backlights.
 
vincentsixtysix said:
strobed backlights = you mean direct lit backlight ?
Click to expand...

No, I mean strobed. The backlight is turned on and off in sync with the refresh rate. Many g-sync monitors have this option and it's called ULMB. There are some other implementations as well, like the one on the venerable Eizo Foris FG2421 and on some Samsung monitors like the C32HG70.

Because the backlight is turned off completely between frames it hides the dark trailing from poor response time. At least in theory. Not sure anyone has done it as well as Eizo did.
 
Last edited:
Rtings pc monitor priorities are completely nonsense because they give the c7v oled 8.5 pc monitor rating. Both the x900e and oleds get 3% score for sdr brightness which is a joke. The OLEDS should have atleast 10% subtracted from their pc score thanks to ABL and ABSL, not to mention burn in and color shift (all store models I checked have color shift). I bought the c7v and 5 minutes into browsing the web I completely regret it. Here's what I wrote in a separate thread:


I don't know what rtings is smoking for rating the OLED's so high for pc monitor usage. I bought the 55c7v and immediately when I popped open a white website the ABL kicked in, massively dulling the brightness. Also OLEDs have problems with color shift and my unit had yellowing whites when viewed directly. I have to browse content at 30 degrees or else the whites become yellow (maxing color temp helped only slighty). Also when you view a static page for 60 second the ABSL kicks in, which also dims your screen, though I think you can disable this with a special service remote.

A 400€ budget 4k tv has a better desktop usage so if you really want OLED you should use one only for movies and gaming and cheap lcd for desktop usage.

Oh and I didn't mention the silent killer that is burn in. If you want to browse at a good 350 nit brightness level (more brightness=faster burn in), you should constantly have to hide bookmark and taskbar icons or else suffer permanent burn in in a few months. https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/permanent-image-retention-burn-in-lcd-oled
 
vincentsixtysix said:
SONY 900E ,

I think rtings.com has given poor ratings to this monitor -- a total of , as a 7.6 -- for a pc monitor. and i can see why that would be bc the Input lag is in the 30's.

so gamers might not find this tv useful, but for those who are after productivity work/ and just use read excels and heavy texts filled webpages all day . -this monitor would be even better than the 800e or the c7 ( both of which have a higher ratings )
Click to expand...

You should create your own R(a)tings and remove the specs/critera that you dont find important. Go back to the review of the 900e and click "create your own". If you read excel spread sheets you wont have a problem making a rting customized with the criteria that you find most useful, like removing or decreasing the importance of input lag or other items. I did something similar with another set and it helped because I didnt populate the list with things that i didnt find useful.

Could help, but will take a while.

******* update *******

I created a rating removing criteria for sound quality because I dont find TV speakers a high priority. I see that changing the critera as to how "use as pc monitor" isnt a sliding scale. Sry.

But on a brighter side, 7.6(7) is considered good:

How to interpret the scores
10 to 7.5
This TV is great for this usage or test. You will be satisfied with it.

7.4 to 6.0
It is good enough for most people, but if you care about this usage or test, it will bother you.

5.9 to 0.0
This TV is below average at this usage or test. It could be an issue even if you aren't particularly picky about this aspect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top