High framerate and OLED

bigbluefe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,055
OLED displays are supposed to be incredibly fast. We saw that news about the 500hz TN panel monitor.

Is there any reason that these OLED screens can't already be 500hz besides manufacturers milking it and drip feeding people slow incremental improvements to maximize profits?
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,951
In case of 4k it's actually the interfaces that are the limitation unless you want 6bit colour..
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,664
Isn't there Display Port 2.0 or something with more bandwidth than HDMI 2.1 already?
It's not the input interface that is the issue. It's the controller driving the panel as well as the panel capabilities.

LG 48GQ900 is basically the "gaming monitor" version of their CX/C1/C2 48" model. It tops out at 138 Hz which is a weird refresh rate to cap at. So there is probably some technical limitation how hard they can drive their panel tech designed originally for 120 Hz.
 

bigbluefe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,055
And which GPU has DP 2.0? Name one 😏

The real question is why each one of these versions is such a tiny incremental jump. They're transparently milking it. They knew HDMI 2.1 wasn't good enough from day one.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,664
The real question is why each one of these versions is such a tiny incremental jump. They're transparently milking it. They knew HDMI 2.1 wasn't good enough from day one.
They can't make a specification nobody can actually build. If they say "HDMI 2.2 should be capable of 16K resolution at 500 Hz!" then to make HDMI controllers that can match that specs would be impossible.

So these specs are based on what is feasible and what is required for displays in the near future (consider that these specs usually take years to finalize in the first place). Eventually stuff comes out that pushes it to the limit. Display Stream Compression is one way to extend those limits.

There's also a bit of chicken and egg going on. With no GPUs capable of DP 2.0 there is no sense to make DP 2.0 displays. Without DP 2.0 displays there is less priority for GPU vendors to implement DP 2.0. I fully expect next gen GPUs to actually have DP 2.0 ports and in the next few years we might see the first displays using it.
 

NukeDukem

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
2,521
The QD-OLED Samsung S95B can be overclocked to 144Hz, although I haven't tried it for myself. Haven't felt the need. 100-120fps range in VRR combined with the insta-fast pixel transitions make it look very smooth already. 4k/500Hz would be great, but we need stronger hardware to take advantage of it. All in due time.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,951
It's not the input interface that is the issue. It's the controller driving the panel as well as the panel capabilities.

LG 48GQ900 is basically the "gaming monitor" version of their CX/C1/C2 48" model. It tops out at 138 Hz which is a weird refresh rate to cap at. So there is probably some technical limitation how hard they can drive their panel tech designed originally for 120 Hz.
Interface is a big part of it but yes fpga and associated hardware needed to drive panel also is an issue.

C2 also does 138hz OC, same guts.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,781
Isn't heat a big issue with OLED, switching faster would not be a linear increase in heat but exponential. Having fans and radiators on a panel probably would not go over well. having a 500w panel with a 600w GPU would be fun, well really not.
 

Pestluder

n00b
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
52
It's not the input interface that is the issue. It's the controller driving the panel as well as the panel capabilities.

LG 48GQ900 is basically the "gaming monitor" version of their CX/C1/C2 48" model. It tops out at 138 Hz which is a weird refresh rate to cap at. So there is probably some technical limitation how hard they can drive their panel tech designed originally for 120 Hz.

I don't know if it's a coincident, but 4k@138hz@12bit hits 48 Gbps...
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,669
In case of 4k it's actually the interfaces that are the limitation unless you want 6bit colour..


Actually, the vast majority pf TN gaming monitors are 6-bit native (you still neeed the connection speed for 8-bit, but the panel plays FRC tricks t make it all work.) You have to pay an impressive price to move all those pixels at 500 hz 8 or 10-bit native ( and nobody is going to buy a $5000 OLED just because it has twice the refresh rate if all these $1000 144 hz models


https://www.techspot.com/article/1788-display-tech-compared/
 
Last edited:

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,664
I don't know if it's a coincident, but 4k@138hz@12bit hits 48 Gbps...
These are 10-bit panels so that's not it. I think it's a limitation of this particular panel or its control hardware where it just can't go higher without redesigning something, which is probably not in the budget for "make a gaming display out of this TV".
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,103
Ok maybe at 4k resolution or 500hz refresh rates things are a little bit tricky. But what about the fact that in 2022 there isn't a single 240Hz desktop OLED monitor at any resolution? Laptops are barely getting announced with 240hz OLED while desktop monitors have zero options.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,304
Ok maybe at 4k resolution or 500hz refresh rates things are a little bit tricky. But what about the fact that in 2022 there isn't a single 240Hz desktop OLED monitor at any resolution? Laptops are barely getting announced with 240hz OLED while desktop monitors have zero options.
While I find complaining for lack of 240Hz OLED monitors quite silly it is in fact strange that when they make OLED monitors they do not make them also as ludicrously fast as possible.

For all intents and purposes driving OLED fast should be easier than LCD
At the very least there is zero worry about pixel response times and thus whole "is it really improving anything" issue.

BTW. With current electronics and DP 1.4 we could already have 1080p panel at 640Hz
It might probably be possible to have 4K panel that can do this at 1080p with integer scaling. Not without redesigning panel's electronics which I doubt will ever happen. There is probably some law in the companies making monitors forbidding engineers doing most obvious thing such as integer scaling.

And while LCD uses pretty much the same tech as it always did, just with better process node to allow for faster speeds and better bit transmitters OLED electronics need to be made... and obviously they will just reuse the same electronics LCD panels use hence inherit not being able to drive panel 4x faster at 1/4 pixel count.

I would totally dig 4K OLED that could do 2160p at 160Hz and 1080p at 640Hz :D
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,669
For all intents and purposes driving OLED fast should be easier than LCD
At the very least there is zero worry about pixel response times and thus whole "is it really improving anything" issue.

Why? in the past, in search of faster TN panels, we cut the electronics down to 6-bits-per-cahnnel + FRC

if you want to chase Ludicrous Speed, then you will have to drop your OLED matrix down to that same level 6-bit + FRC. CAN YOU IMAGINE how few people would willingly take such a quality hit on OLED? PLUS pay a DOUBLE PRICE premium?
 

MistaSparkul

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,103
While I find complaining for lack of 240Hz OLED monitors quite silly it is in fact strange that when they make OLED monitors they do not make them also as ludicrously fast as possible.

For all intents and purposes driving OLED fast should be easier than LCD
At the very least there is zero worry about pixel response times and thus whole "is it really improving anything" issue.

BTW. With current electronics and DP 1.4 we could already have 1080p panel at 640Hz
It might probably be possible to have 4K panel that can do this at 1080p with integer scaling. Not without redesigning panel's electronics which I doubt will ever happen. There is probably some law in the companies making monitors forbidding engineers doing most obvious thing such as integer scaling.

And while LCD uses pretty much the same tech as it always did, just with better process node to allow for faster speeds and better bit transmitters OLED electronics need to be made... and obviously they will just reuse the same electronics LCD panels use hence inherit not being able to drive panel 4x faster at 1/4 pixel count.

I would totally dig 4K OLED that could do 2160p at 160Hz and 1080p at 640Hz :D

And why is it silly to want OLED at higher refresh rates?
 

bigbluefe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
1,055
Actually, the vast majority pf TN gaming monitors are 6-bit native (you still neeed the connection speed for 8-bit, but the panel plays FRC tricks t make it all work.) You have to pay an impressive price to move all those pixels at 500 hz 8 or 10-bit native ( and nobody is going to buy a $5000 OLED just because it has twice the refresh rate if all these $1000 144 hz models


https://www.techspot.com/article/1788-display-tech-compared/

What are you talking about? Tons of people would pay out. All I see is excuse making when it's obvious that they just drip feed incremental improvements to sell 4 times as many products.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,669
What are you talking about? Tons of people would pay out. All I see is excuse making when it's obvious that they just drip feed incremental improvements to sell 4 times as many products.
What are you talking about? Tons of people would pay out. All I see is excuse making when it's obvious that they just drip feed incremental improvements to sell 4 times as many products.
Oh,obviously all five of them.:

remember all he oled holdouts who are scared about burn-in, and also those who hate all these new pixel layouts/ anti-glare costings?

2 WHY WOULD ANY GAMER Pay A PREMIUM FOR A SYSTEM WITH SUCH COMPROMISED COLOR QUALITY,YOU'D BE HARD-PRESSED TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT AND IPS?
 
Last edited:

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
3,445
There is nothing we can do about it unless you want to jump in the game like Scribby did back in the Catleap days and get your ass handed to you.

All you can do is buy the best tech available when its available or hold out and play the waiting game until you are dead.

Its expensive and complex to manufacture anything let alone bleeding edge tech, so I don't blame companies for wanting to milk gravy trains and roll out advancements in product only when absolutely necessary for the bottom line.

If you want the fastest oled gaming panel get the AW34 it kicks ass.
If you want the best HDR get the PG32UQX as they are reselling sub 2 grand now
If you want somewhere in between those two then the G8 will probably suffice.
 

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,304
And why is it silly to want OLED at higher refresh rates?
There is not that many OLED monitors to begin with. Its too early to talk about specialized gaming OLEDs
It might seem there are OLEDs because you can go and buy giant "monitor" but those are hardly monitors at heart. More like TV panel with monitor electronics. And these panels were designed for 120Hz. You could probably OC them a lot but manufacturers won't do that to later find out they have lots of returns and damaged brands. Besides panel manufacturers wouldn't like to sell you panels if you overclocked them. Hence monitor makers need panel makers to rate panels at given speed and at most add few Hz extra as special feature. Not twice more!

Besides, first we need to get proper 27-32" RGB OLED panel rated at 144Hz and then they will make faster ones - at which point there will be DP 2.0 and all the required bandwidth.

But before we get 32" RGB OLED at 144Hz they will try to sell more LCDs.
There are of course some exceptions like proper gaming monitors and its nice there are. They could maybe be faster but they are what they are... and why they are only that is anyone's guess. I'd say panel was rated at some speed and this speed was used. Why it was rated this and not 300Hz? Probably because it would not work very well at 200-300Hz.

Why? in the past, in search of faster TN panels, we cut the electronics down to 6-bits-per-cahnnel + FRC

if you want to chase Ludicrous Speed, then you will have to drop your OLED matrix down to that same level 6-bit + FRC. CAN YOU IMAGINE how few people would willingly take such a quality hit on OLED? PLUS pay a DOUBLE PRICE premium?
Care to explain what part of panel design would allow to push more pixels with less 'bits'?
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
3,445
Actually, the vast majority pf TN gaming monitors are 6-bit native (you still neeed the connection speed for 8-bit, but the panel plays FRC tricks t make it all work.) You have to pay an impressive price to move all those pixels at 500 hz 8 or 10-bit native ( and nobody is going to buy a $5000 OLED just because it has twice the refresh rate if all these $1000 144 hz models


https://www.techspot.com/article/1788-display-tech-compared/
I would. A $5,000 4k240hz 32" oled would be cheaper than; AW34 + PG32UQX + G8. Id rather have one grail display then 3 compromises.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,987
I would. A $5,000 4k240hz 32" oled would be cheaper than; AW34 + PG32UQX + G8. Id rather have one grail display then 3 compromises.
I'd say the number of gamers who would do so is in the low or mid single digits on every forum ;).
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
3,445
I'd say the number of gamers who would do so is in the low or mid single digits on every forum ;).
1654989958729.png
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
3,445
I'd say the number of gamers who would do so is in the low or mid single digits on every forum ;).

Seriously though....you know and I know that they could produce a 4k240hz 1600nit capable oled panel for under $2,000 now. I'm pretty sure we will see alienware come out with such a display in the next year or two at that price point.
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
24,987
Seriously though....you know and I know that they could produce a 4k240hz 1600nit capable oled panel for under $2,000 now. I'm pretty sure we will see alienware come out with such a display in the next year or two at that price point.
That would be nice. I just can't see dropping high end projector money ($5k+) for a tiny panel right now. It would drop in price too quickly and be throwing money into the fireplace ;).
 

Gatecrasher3000

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
433
Isn't heat a big issue with OLED, switching faster would not be a linear increase in heat but exponential. Having fans and radiators on a panel probably would not go over well. having a 500w panel with a 600w GPU would be fun, well really not.

It's funny because if you ask most consumers (especially us) if they could get a better more life like picture quality, but their TV's would be a inch or two thicker then I think most people would choose the better looking picture of the thicker TV.
TV's are paper thin now, something I don't think I ever heard anyone request.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
2,036
It’s most likely a simple volume and product development cost issue. R&D is spread over units sold. The number of OLED PC size monitors sold is minuscule (to date) and until recently exclusively for professional use.
The first higher than 60hz displays have been non monitor use ironically (mobile, TV) but we’re now seeing laptops and even the first gaming centric OLED pc monitors ship with 120+.
Panel makers are really the ones driving this and hopefully they start pushing towards the eventual 1khz / 1ms frame time that OLEDs are capable of which also means making more than the 2 gaming pc oled panels available today.
 
Top