Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. “Some sort of compromise” implies that there are several strengths, and one weakness. The different panel types (TN, VA, IPS, OLED) are like this.Every monitor is some sort of compromise.
OLED is God Tier, blessed flawless beauty of the PC Master Race!
The display makers will not give us a perfect 32" 4k120VRR OLED for fear that we will never buy another monitor again. So they just keep pump and dumping the same old cheap LCD trash year after year.
I got the AW55 to get out of the shitty LCD racket until we get a 32" blessed beauty, and if it were not for Dell raping me in the ass over the price on the 32nd day, I would be totally happy....but its OK, I raped them in the ass right back.
Wrong.
32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.
None of those metrics are objective (Personally 32” is the right size, I would be happy with even more pixels than 4K but 4K is okay, 120Hz is plenty when coming from 60Hz [and I game at 4K and have zero hope right now of even reaching 120Hz anyway] and I don’t want an ultra wide for anything other than gaming which is a very small percentage of what I do in front of a computer).
Subjectivity is kind of the problem with this thread in the first place. Granted there is a lot of garbage. But then manufacturers do create high end displays and every in this forum bitches about the cost. The X27 had some compromises but costed 2k. The xb273k brought the cost variable down but people still complain about it. Dell created an OLED monitor but no one bought it at $5k or whatever dollars it was.
Wrong.
32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.
"Every monitor sucks" compared to what?
Reality?
What kind of "upsides only" world do you think you live in?
Subjectivity is at the root of the problem but people use their monitors for very different purposes even within the same use case, preferences vary wildly.
Look at all the threads for any of the unique form factors like the 32:9 Samsungs or the LG 38" Gsync. You will always find people who say "This double wide monitor is interesting, but let me know when they make a version just like it but twice as tall" or one of about 5 other flavors of cranks: "where is MICRO LED!" or "Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"
The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.
The reason I posted this thread wasn't to argue. Rather, I was hoping that people would fill the thread with enough positivity to counteract the pessimism that I've developed towards the current display market.I should also note that every time someone says “change my mind” they really just want an argument and have no intention of their mind being changed. Change my mind.
I'm fine at 60 Hz and non-ultrawide. I just want ANY OLED monitor. There's no reason it shouldn't exist. Most tech heads who aren't display orientated have noticed that their laptops and TVs and phones are OLED, and some are even high refresh, but their monitors looks the same they did 10 years ago, with a few ultrawides and high-refresh ones thrown in the mix.normal gamers: monitor looks good, I’ll buy it
This forum: “no, instead Spend $2000 on the Asus even though it sucks. how hard is it to make a 4K 240hz variable refresh OLED display? Why can’t they make my dream monitor?”
I mean there’s [H] and then there’s whining.
Are we really acting as if this is what people have been asking for? There's a difference between wanting a dream display and asking for someone to make an OLED monitor because it's been a decade since the technology's existed. People are pissed because the tech is clearly there, but they're purposely moving at snail speed. It's deliberate, and it's malicious, and that's obvious."Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"
The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.
Subjectivity is at the root of the problem but people use their monitors for very different purposes even within the same use case, preferences vary wildly.
Look at all the threads for any of the unique form factors like the 32:9 Samsungs or the LG 38" Gsync. You will always find people who say "This double wide monitor is interesting, but let me know when they make a version just like it but twice as tall" or one of about 5 other flavors of cranks: "where is MICRO LED!" or "Call me when they make a gaming OLED!"
The entitlement and unrealistic expectation would be recognizably absurd in any other product domain.
Entitlement? This is a free market. Someone saying "I don't like your products, make a better one and I'll buy it" is not entitlement. It's market pressure. I haven't bought a new display in 5 years, even though I don't like my current one that much: not because I can't afford or refuse to pay for a the one that suits me, but because I can't see any display on the market worth paying for. a screen that ticks all my boxes does not exist, therefore I'm not opening my wallet. That's not entitlement. That's having the godamn right to what I want with my godamn money. These days people think ANY form of opinion is entitlement.
I was so hopeful for this one, but they screwed it up by giving it an asinine BGR sub-pixel array. On top of that, it's overdrive implementation isn't great, and it gets pretty bad black smear.The Asus Strix XG438Q would be a pretty good unit too if you have the real estate. https://www.asus.com/Monitors/ROG-Strix-XG438Q/
- 4K 4:3 VA Panel
- 120 refresh rate Freesync 2
- HDR 600
That's fine, maybe you just don't see it.
I'm the opposite. All of my CRT memories are terrible, but maybe my CRTs weren't that great? Terrible blacks, Annoying fish bowl shape, flickering refresh rate (although 85hz was nice at the time), enormous and bulky. Resolution was okay i guess, obviously crap compared to resolutions we have today. I had a viewsonic 17" generic CRT, and a couple SONY 21" trinitrons.I also think that the problem also is this. CRT kicked a lot of ass and achieved a LOT when it came to outright display quality.
Compromise is not a synonym for weakness or con. A compromise does not imply one weakness. A compromise means giving up some thing(s) you wanted for some other thing(s).No. “Some sort of compromise” implies that there are several strengths, and one weakness. The different panel types (TN, VA, IPS, OLED) are like this.
Today’s monitors are one strength, and the rest compromises.
I'm the opposite. All of my CRT memories are terrible, but maybe my CRTs weren't that great? Terrible blacks, Annoying fish bowl shape, flickering refresh rate (although 85hz was nice at the time), enormous and bulky. Resolution was okay i guess, obviously crap compared to resolutions we have today. I had a viewsonic 17" generic CRT, and a couple SONY 21" trinitrons.
The first LCDs were terrible, but at some point around 2007 I decided the ghosting and input latency had dramatically gone down, and the colors were okay. I definitely do not miss any of the CRTs i owned.
These days I walk into costco and am just blown away by the quality of the TVs.
Also, OLEDs look weird.
Wrong.
32" is too big, 4K is too many pixels, 120Hz is too low and 16:9 is too narrow.
"Every monitor sucks" compared to what?
Reality?
What kind of "upsides only" world do you think you live in?
There's a difference between wanting a dream display and asking for someone to make an OLED monitor because it's been a decade since the technology's existed. People are pissed because the tech is clearly there, but they're purposely moving at snail speed. It's deliberate, and it's malicious, and that's obvious.
It's like some kind of cosmic law that monitors have to suck.
Personally, 32", 4k, 120hz, 16:9 would be the dream monitor. I'd happily pay $2,000 for that. Maybe even a bit more than that if it had top notch HDR performance.
While we all want different things, I'd say a 32" 4K 16/9 monitor would satisfy the great majority of users. 120hz would be great, but 60hz would be acceptable to most (specially if we're talking OLED, the ultra-low latency on its own would make it far better than 60hz LCD). However, why on Earth would you pay 2K for that? You can buy a 32" 4K 75hz 16/9 monitor for $300 right now. Adding 45hz to that panel certainly wouldn't cost $1700 more.
Personally I'm quite happy with my Philips 328E9FJAB: 32" QHD curved 16/9 VA panel. Great size, definition, colors, 75hz is enough (I got it for way cheaper than the regular $300 on a good deal). The only - notable - gripe? I can't wall-mount it because the idiotic designers put all the ports facing back, and neither HDMI/displayport/power will fit between the monitor/wall on a regular wall mount. Philips's design idiocy baffles me, on an otherwise great monitor.
(snip) As far as the "bargain" (read: junk) 32" Philips you linked... how do you know that "adding 45hz to that panel" would not cost $1700? If 32" 4k 120hz panels existed, let alone without a huge price tag, surely we'd be seeing them for sale.
Until then, I'll stick with playing musical primary displays based on what game I'm playing. 60hz or 75hz for first person shooters is absolutely miserable, so my 32" 165hz 1440p VA panel stays on my desk as well.
Wait wait wait… if this thing exists, with 4K 120Hz, what the hell are we all waiting for over in the thread about the 43” Asuses and the upcoming 43” Acer?! Why do those 3 displays matter at all is this thing exists?! I don’t think I’ve been more confused in a good few months…it's already been available for a while at a reasonable price of $1400... though at a bigger 43" size (which still proves my point, a 32" 4K panel is not more expensive to produce than a 43 one, otherwise, those 4K phone screens would cost tens of thousands of dollars).
If by cosmic law you mean manufacturers not wanting to make good, smaller sized OLED panels because they'll be picture perfect and last for a bunch of years, meaning they'll lose sales overall... then yes, it's a cosmic law.
Wait wait wait… if this thing exists, with 4K 120Hz, what the hell are we all waiting for over in the thread about the 43” Asuses and the upcoming 43” Acer?! Why do those 3 displays matter at all is this thing exists?! I don’t think I’ve been more confused in a good few months…