It's happening, affordable 4k OLED TV's are finally becoming a reality

:-) said:
So seems like that all OLED hype was bigger than it was worth? Looks like they aren't that perfect what people thought?
Click to expand...

No, the problem is LG, not OLED.

Look at their shit-ass LCD sets, as always they're far behind Panasonic and Sony when it comes to quality signal management, slapping an OLED in place of their usual IPS unfortunately doesn't change that LG engineering sucks.

The irony is that they've basically in a monopoly position, we can only wait until other manufacturers get serious about OLED.

And quit dreaming about strobing and higher frequencies on TVs, You guys making up a flaw for OLED that's existing for LCD's too since forever.
Anything betond 60Hz will happen only in the monitors realm.

I'd mention that personally I'd take any 60Hz OLED over anything else 60Hz, so I don't know what people complain about, that OLED TV's aren't huge über-PG279Qs ? Again: no TV will ever be.
 
:-) said:
So seems like that all OLED hype was bigger than it was worth? Looks like they aren't that perfect what people thought?
Click to expand...

What?

OLED destroys LCD, it's just that Plasma was very good also and compared to that, it's not quite as good in some respects (yet).

That said as good as Plasma was there was never any hope of Plasma monitors being made, that's clearly not the case with OLED since we have some real products starting to arrive in a few months
 
Richard Jones said:
No, the problem is LG, not OLED.

Look at their shit-ass LCD sets, as always they're far behind Panasonic and Sony when it comes to quality signal management, slapping an OLED in place of their usual IPS unfortunately doesn't change that LG engineering sucks.

The irony is that they've basically in a monopoly position, we can only wait until other manufacturers get serious about OLED.

And quit dreaming about strobing and higher frequencies on TVs, You guys making up a flaw for OLED that's existing for LCD's too since forever.
Anything betond 60Hz will happen only in the monitors realm.

I'd mention that personally I'd take any 60Hz OLED over anything else 60Hz, so I don't know what people complain about, that OLED TV's aren't huge über-PG279Qs ? Again: no TV will ever be.
Click to expand...

Motion handling is definitely a concern for TVs, even more so than for monitors actually (outside of the gaming segment). OLED still doesn't look as good in motion as plasmas did at their best.
 
aeliusg said:
Motion handling is definitely a concern for TVs, even more so than for monitors actually (outside of the gaming segment). OLED still doesn't look as good in motion as plasmas did at their best.
Click to expand...

You're probably only quoting stuff you've read somewhere and making the same mistake others do: the issue is bad image processing from LG's crappy built-in scalers and software, it has nothing to do with the panel's technology.
 
Richard Jones said:
You're probably only quoting stuff you've read somewhere and making the same mistake others do: the issue is bad image processing from LG's crappy built-in scalers and software, it has nothing to do with the panel's technology.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. If what you're referring to as "crappy built-in scalers and software" is your way of pointing out the culprit that is sample-and-hold persistence, you might be right. Otherwise, it would seem you don't know what you're talking about. In any case, your earlier comment about "strobing" points to the latter.
 
There're no 4K plasmas and will never be any HDR plasmas so it's kind of a moot point. Plasmas do still have some pluses compared to OLED but personally I wouldn't pick plasma over OLED just over motion quality, I mean if you are primarily watching 24fps content you've already completely given up the game on motion resolution. And that's what my TV is for.

It's still very early days for the technology. the reason people are excited about it is not because of the current state but because of the potential -- the basic characteristics of the hardware mean that it is possible to produce far better screens than any LCD or Plasma. It doesn't mean that /currently available/ OLEDs are better in every way than the last generation plasmas. They are, however, better in very significant ways.

Plasmas are great but anyone who says they don't have their downsides is wrong, outside of the F8500 series(which I own) they would all be unwatchable in my living room on any given day before 6pm.
 
Sancus said:
There're no 4K plasmas and will never be any HDR plasmas so it's kind of a moot point. Plasmas do still have some pluses compared to OLED but personally I wouldn't pick plasma over OLED just over motion quality, I mean if you are primarily watching 24fps content you've already completely given up the game on motion resolution. And that's what my TV is for.

It's still very early days for the technology. the reason people are excited about it is not because of the current state but because of the potential -- the basic characteristics of the hardware mean that it is possible to produce far better screens than any LCD or Plasma. It doesn't mean that /currently available/ OLEDs are better in every way than the last generation plasmas. They are, however, better in very significant ways.

Plasmas are great but anyone who says they don't have their downsides is wrong, outside of the F8500 series(which I own) they would all be unwatchable in my living room on any given day before 6pm.
Click to expand...

Plasma is dead already, so it's a moot point anyway. A user pointed out that motion was not as good on their current-generation OLED as it was on their plasma. That's not moot at all especially if all you're hearing is OLED will solve everything and you end up purchasing one only to find out that it's a step backwards in that department. Don't worry, though, no one has it out for OLED. It'll make it. :D
 
aeliusg said:
Yes and no. If what you're referring to as "crappy built-in scalers and software" is your way of pointing out the culprit that is sample-and-hold persistence, you might be right. Otherwise, it would seem you don't know what you're talking about. In any case, your earlier comment about "strobing" points to the latter.
Click to expand...

All TVs are sample and hold. I know very well what I'm talking about, and your expectation of strobing is a non-issue for TVs since it'll never happen in gaming-relevant form, no matter the panel's technology.
(well the Sonys did 60Hz strobing, but it's awful of course, much too slow)
Top-of-the range TVs with advanced blur reduction use frame interpolation and black frame insertion, sometimes combined like the Sonys, but it's useless for gaming anyway since it's processing on top of the input signal which is always 60Hz or other usual TV/video standards.
Again what you think are problems inherent to OLED are problems inherent to TVs in general.
 
Richard Jones said:
All TVs are sample and hold. I know very well what I'm talking about, and your expectation of strobing is a non-issue for TVs since it'll never happen in gaming-relevant form, no matter the panel's technology.
Top-of-the range TVs with advanced blur reduction use frame interpolation and black frame insertion, sometimes combined like the Sonys, but it's useless for gaming anyway since it's processing on top of the input signal which is always 60Hz or other usual TV/video standards.
Again what you think are problems inherent to OLED are problems inherent to TVs in general.
Click to expand...

Please, stop. Your responses are completely out of whack. No one in this thread even mentioned gaming until you arrived on the scene with your pronouncements of all you very well know. The fact is a sample-and-hold OLED doesn't look as good in motion as a PWM-driven plasma or (god forbid, I mention) a CRT. That problem can be solved, but it hasn't been yet, not by Panasonic nor anyone. That's all that was spoken. LCD was never even mentioned. Everybody, calm down. :p
 
Why does LG basically own the OLED panel market? Do they have some obscure patent on a particular method of panel manufacture or something? Have the other players just not bothered making the investment? If the latter, why?

I want the OLED market to advance as I love what I hear about OLED's potential but it seems like that future is sort of uncertain for the TV market at least. We are seeing some OLED monitors and laptops coming now at least, I guess.
 
illram said:
Why does LG basically own the OLED panel market? Do they have some obscure patent on a particular method of panel manufacture or something?
Click to expand...

LG bought patents and probably trade secrets for WRGB in 2009 from Kodak. So far, WRGB and Kodak's white oled technology have proven to be the highest yield method for making large OLED panels. Samsung gave up on producing large panels with their own OLED technology several years ago, likely because they couldn't figure out how to get the yields high enough. It is possible they'll fix this, or that they'll figure out how to do WRGB without infringing on LG's patents at some point, who knows.

That said, LG only owns the large format(50"+) panel market. AFAIK, all panels for upcoming laptops and even the panels in Dell's upcoming 30" OLED monitor are Samsung panels. And of course, millions of phones and tablets have Samsung's OLED panels in them as well.
 
illram said:
Why does LG basically own the OLED panel market? Do they have some obscure patent on a particular method of panel manufacture or something? Have the other players just not bothered making the investment? If the latter, why?

I want the OLED market to advance as I love what I hear about OLED's potential but it seems like that future is sort of uncertain for the TV market at least. We are seeing some OLED monitors and laptops coming now at least, I guess.
Click to expand...


It's not really uncertain anymore, a few years ago OLED's future was in question but IMO it's a when not if that this tech will go mainstream now. Despite no competition LG is nearly matching prices of high end LCDs (looking at the Samsung JS9500 vs EF9500 OLED), so it's clear they are pushing forward towards mainstream adoption. Also, reports put the 1080p OLEDs at a 90% yield rate and the 4K ones are expected to hit 80-90% by year's end.

Also there are rumors Samsung may be planning to re-enter the TV market. Like Sancus mentioned though, they aren't completely shunning OLED right now, they probably actually make more OLED displays than LG considering their position in the cell phone market.
 
Sancus said:
There're no 4K plasmas and will never be any HDR plasmas so it's kind of a moot point. Plasmas do still have some pluses compared to OLED but personally I wouldn't pick plasma over OLED just over motion quality, I mean if you are primarily watching 24fps content you've already completely given up the game on motion resolution. And that's what my TV is for.

It's still very early days for the technology. the reason people are excited about it is not because of the current state but because of the potential -- the basic characteristics of the hardware mean that it is possible to produce far better screens than any LCD or Plasma. It doesn't mean that /currently available/ OLEDs are better in every way than the last generation plasmas. They are, however, better in very significant ways.

Plasmas are great but anyone who says they don't have their downsides is wrong, outside of the F8500 series(which I own) they would all be unwatchable in my living room on any given day before 6pm.
Click to expand...
I have to put a blanket over my window if I want to play video games during the day lol
 
I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only hope for display nirvana on the pc lies with tvs getting more monitor like attributes.


I remember reading somewhere that the pc monitor market was not growing like televisions were. The growth areas for displays are smartphones and tvs, not monitors.


And the former two areas are exactly where we are seeing the most advancement. We are Just BARELY now beginning to see oled break into the pc market, and they are still not actually on the market yet.


The dell oled is the first. For 5 thousand dollars. The lg 55" 4k tv is around 3k now, 2 thousand dollars less for a much bigger and more immersive display.

IF they could only get the input lag down on lg tvs (wtf is up with that on the lg side, it's some of the worst out of all tv makers?).



But it's imminently clear that tv oled will come down in price orders of magnitude faster than monitors, so perhaps we should try to get lg to.....



-Keep getting yields up and build more oled factories.
-add displayport 1.3 / super mhl to their oled tvs by default
-add freesync to their oled display hardware by default (if it's as cheap to implement as people say this can only help lg, why NOT do this?)
-get the input lag lower for gods sakes.
-TRY to release a 40-43" 4k hdr oled range of displays, this may not be that enticing a tv, but it's the pinnacle size for a 4k desktop display and this size product could dip into two markets better than a 55" + sized oled could.
-HDR+120+ Hz of course


I think it will be easier to nudge lg into releasing a tv like that before we can get monitor makers to release something similar. They still keep tossing pennies at our feet with these widescreen displays, they LOVE those because they can increase the diagonal inch number while actually giving the user LESS overall screen area. The less square the displays get, the less monitor we get. And the screen sizes, some monitor vendors seem to think that 27" is the biggest unicorn size anyone would ever want to look at. It's absolutely insulting. Every monitor should have freesync at a bare minimum unless they are going after the charge nvidia users hundreds more route with gsync.


It would be interesting to talk to an lg engineer that works on the dynamics of making a good tv, and how easy/hard it would be to tweak it to fit the desires of the gaming monitor crowd. Is it just extremely expensive to add vrr to a tv? higher refresh rate? displayport 1.3?
 
tybert7 said:
I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only hope for display nirvana on the pc lies with tvs getting more monitor like attributes.


I remember reading somewhere that the pc monitor market was not growing like televisions were. The growth areas for displays are smartphones and tvs, not monitors.


And the former two areas are exactly where we are seeing the most advancement. We are Just BARELY now beginning to see oled break into the pc market, and they are still not actually on the market yet.
Click to expand...



For long time TV's have had far superior panels compared to monitors, and in case of big 32"-40"monitors I think their panels are actually TV rejects considering how often you see issues with them. Fast non-TN 120hz panels have been a norm on them for years, which is sad because its wasted on active 3DTV stuff only, just a few of them support actual 120hz input even though there is no physical reason not to, its all in how picky the firmware is.

Also TV's come with far superior calibration controls. Instead of the one point RGB controls which barely allow getting color temperature right on the bright end side the TV's come with AT LEAST two point calibration system which allow getting correct colors and color temperatures on both dark and bright end of the spectrum, all without the help of ICC profiles or such software solutions which have issues of their own. Best come with 10-point system which allow getting everything spot on even more accurately, making ICC profiles almost completely unnecessary.

Only downsides of TVs are the size (which depends on individuals living situations) and lag (which is the real problem we have to deal with). If you can deal with both TV's are, in my book, the only true solutions for people who care about image quality. Almost professional quality features cheaper than actual professional monitors.
 
Sancus said:
LG bought patents and probably trade secrets for WRGB in 2009 from Kodak. So far, WRGB and Kodak's white oled technology have proven to be the highest yield method for making large OLED panels. Samsung gave up on producing large panels with their own OLED technology several years ago, likely because they couldn't figure out how to get the yields high enough. It is possible they'll fix this, or that they'll figure out how to do WRGB without infringing on LG's patents at some point, who knows.

That said, LG only owns the large format(50"+) panel market. AFAIK, all panels for upcoming laptops and even the panels in Dell's upcoming 30" OLED monitor are Samsung panels. And of course, millions of phones and tablets have Samsung's OLED panels in them as well.
Click to expand...


I thought Samsung was getting back into the OLED market?
 
Affordable 4k?

What about normal 1080p monitors and tvs :( ?
I dont want 4k
 
Odellus said:
wow what a massive improvement...
Click to expand...

For a TV its good enough. Good for any single player experience, even fast ones if you keep Vsync off. If i had money i would buy one based on these lag results. Now where's that lottery ticket... :D
 
I have the EC9300 Oled, my Leo Bodnar shows in PC mode with Game Mode 29ms and I tried it 20 times to get an average because for some reason oled will send wildly different numbers, I would get 36ms, 42ms, 46ms etc... the average of 20 times was 36ms.

if this new tv is getting 33ms solid, I would certainly say thats an improvement, as long as native 4k gets that number. Playing pc games with vsync off should be totally fine on a display with that much lag, in my experience console gaming that has vysnc enabled is not very enjoyable with 36ms of input lag. I cant play well enough bf4 on a tv with that kind of lag..
 
coolhandm3 said:
I have the EC9300 Oled, my Leo Bodnar shows in PC mode with Game Mode 29ms and I tried it 20 times to get an average because for some reason oled will send wildly different numbers, I would get 36ms, 42ms, 46ms etc... the average of 20 times was 36ms.

if this new tv is getting 33ms solid, I would certainly say thats an improvement, as long as native 4k gets that number. Playing pc games with vsync off should be totally fine on a display with that much lag, in my experience console gaming that has vysnc enabled is not very enjoyable with 36ms of input lag. I cant play well enough bf4 on a tv with that kind of lag..
Click to expand...

I agree, I have the EC9300 as well and no issues with the lag on it. The 50ms of last year's sets was unacceptable though, so for me, this is indeed a huge improvement.

Hopefully the numbers are the same (or lower) in PC mode with full 4:4:4 chroma. Usually on LG TVs the figures from Game and PC mode aren't much different.
 
defaultluser said:
No, the reason why we never saw plasma monitors was a whole slew of issues:

1. Power consumption.
2. Power consumption
3. Power consumption
4. Burn-in issues
5. Not bright enough for most use cases.
6. No matte option (for business)
Click to expand...

Plasma's are considerably brighter than CRT monitors so I'd have to disagree with #5, I used to have an FW900 CRT sitting next to a Kuro Plasma and it made the CRT actually look dim in comparison. (PC looks fantastic on the Plasma btw).

Edit: from what I can gather online looks like Plasma were limited to larger screens due to having a larger pixel pitch associated with the technology, wouldn't look very good on a smaller monitor up close.
 
Last edited:
33 ms is fine for most of us if true and for great picture quality I will happily sacrifice some lag. 50+ was a bridge too far though...
 
33ms would be perfectly acceptable to me if they would address the motion blur/smoothness issues mentioned previously.
 
imyourzero said:
33ms would be perfectly acceptable to me if they would address the motion blur/smoothness issues mentioned previously.
Click to expand...

As long as we are stuck in 4k 60hz there is nothing we can do about it without the help of BFI and there is no backlight to simulate it on lower framerates. But honestly the sample and hold blur is just a matter of getting used to. How long have people been playing on 60hz IPS monitors with way worse response times, which make the blurring worse, and only few complained? 120hz and lightboosts have spoiled us. :)
 
illram said:
33 ms is fine for most of us if true and for great picture quality I will happily sacrifice some lag. 50+ was a bridge too far though...
Click to expand...

the EC9300 has 40 ms of input lag in game mode. you are not going to notice the difference between 33 and 40, they're both terrible.
 
33ms is absolutely horrible input lag for an OLED display, which should be incredibly responsive due to its speed.

That's two frames of lag in a 60hz game. That's awful. LCDs shouldn't have less input lag than fucking OLEDs.

I'm convinced that these manufacturers purposely gimp displays just so they can milk it all over again.

We can't just get a good display at the beginning. Nope. We have to wait through several cycles.

1. Initial turd displays
2. Maybe one with low input lag but still 60hz
3. Then a 120hz+ one with high input lag
4. Then a 120hz+ one with low input lag
5. Then a variable refresh one that's only 60hz
6. Then finally a variable refresh one that's 120hz with low input lag

And so on. Fuck these assholes. There's no excuse.
 
bigbluefe said:
33ms is absolutely horrible input lag for an OLED display, which should be incredibly responsive due to its speed.

That's two frames of lag in a 60hz game. That's awful. LCDs shouldn't have less input lag than fucking OLEDs.

I'm convinced that these manufacturers purposely gimp displays just so they can milk it all over again.

We can't just get a good display at the beginning. Nope. We have to wait through several cycles.

1. Initial turd displays
2. Maybe one with low input lag but still 60hz
3. Then a 120hz+ one with high input lag
4. Then a 120hz+ one with low input lag
5. Then a variable refresh one that's only 60hz
6. Then finally a variable refresh one that's 120hz with low input lag

And so on. Fuck these assholes. There's no excuse.
Click to expand...

Thats the amount of lag vsync adds, to put things in perspective. Its very small and almost unnoticeable on lagless screen. Now of you put vsync on top of it and get four frames of lag then yeah, it gets unresponsive for twitch games. But god damn Counter Strike shooters and Street Fighters are not the only type of games out there and those are pretty much the only games you need to shave off every ms lag.

Also how many high end TV's with below 30ms lag have you seen? I can count maybe 5 that have existed within 10 years. 33ms is not a bad number for 60hz TV thats loaded with features. Again put things in perspective before you put the TV down as a lost cause.


*edit* I also have to add, the Leo Bodnar device they use to test input lag with maxes out at 1080p, 4K version does not exist yet. So in case of 4K TV's the test is also running through built-in scalers! The real life lag, depending on how slow the scaler was, MIGHT very well be smaller than what we are seeing now.
 
Last edited:
But those built-in scalers aren't required to do any uncommon resizing that would require buffering, the 'tv scaling lag' is kind of an urban legend, in practice they do it as fast as any gpu does. it's an extremely simple job after all.
Now of course if there's some post-processing added in the chain, it'll be different...

The greatest concern I have bout the LB tester is that apparently it doesn't start to count immediately on the first scanlines, there's a bit of delay before it begins. It is also sensitive to brightness level and a number of other things.
A safer method is tftcentral's wich combines SMTT 2.0 and average pixel response, the results are usually different from the LB (shorter times in fact).
Then there's also the still open debate on where to measure lag, averaging results or not, etc.

One thing is still reliable IMHO: if you can't feel the lag at all, then it's probably quite low or at least very acceptable.
 
Richard Jones said:
But those built-in scalers aren't required to do any uncommon resizing that would require buffering, the 'tv scaling lag' is kind of an urban legend, in practice they do it as fast as any gpu does. it's an extremely simple job after all.
Now of course if there's some post-processing added in the chain, it'll be different...

The greatest concern I have bout the LB tester is that apparently it doesn't start to count immediately on the first scanlines, there's a bit of delay before it begins. It is also sensitive to brightness level and a number of other things.
A safer method is tftcentral's wich combines SMTT 2.0 and average pixel response, the results are usually different from the LB (shorter times in fact).
Then there's also the still open debate on where to measure lag, averaging results or not, etc.

One thing is still reliable IMHO: if you can't feel the lag at all, then it's probably quite low or at least very acceptable.
Click to expand...

So if TFTCentral would measure this TV it would most likely have even lower input lag numbers. Which would put this TV well into their Class 2 category, which I consider good enough to be a gaming screen if the monitor gives a lot of good stuff in other departments.
 
Odellus said:
the EC9300 has 40 ms of input lag in game mode. you are not going to notice the difference between 33 and 40, they're both terrible.
Click to expand...

I have tested it over 40 times, sometimes it shows 29ms, sometimes 36 ms , 42ms etc... the average was 36ms, not like 4ms is somthing you can feel.

A game that has vsync and 36ms of input lag is imho too much and ruins the enjoyment and precision you need. Turning off vsync helps alot and would put a 36ms nearer to what a lagless screen would feel like with vsync on but a lagless screen with no vsync would feel even better.

I hope the B and C series have even lower lag then this G6...
 
If these had adaptive-sync so that you avoid the latency of V-Sync, that 33ms number would be acceptable - especially when you consider that most sites are measuring the middle of the screen, so you can subtract 8ms from that result.
It would be even better if they accepted a 120Hz input. I just don't understand why so many TVs have 120Hz or even 240Hz panels but are still limited to 60Hz inputs.
 
zone74 said:
If these had adaptive-sync so that you avoid the latency of V-Sync, that 33ms number would be acceptable - especially when you consider that most sites are measuring the middle of the screen, so you can subtract 8ms from that result.
It would be even better if they accepted a 120Hz input. I just don't understand why so many TVs have 120Hz or even 240Hz panels but are still limited to 60Hz inputs.
Click to expand...

These are 4K TV's. 60hz is the max we have bandwidth for with current hardware. 120hz @ 1080p however would be possible but these use passive tech for 3D so i bet it processes internally everything in 60hz too.
 
zone74 said:
If these had adaptive-sync so that you avoid the latency of V-Sync, that 33ms number would be acceptable - especially when you consider that most sites are measuring the middle of the screen, so you can subtract 8ms from that result.
It would be even better if they accepted a 120Hz input. I just don't understand why so many TVs have 120Hz or even 240Hz panels but are still limited to 60Hz inputs.
Click to expand...

Adaptive sync only matters below the max refresh rate. After that it's back to V-sync on/off, so you can't avoid that latency unless you want tearing.

As far as subtracting, are you saying the vertical scan on these OLED panels is still noticeable? I guess I only considered the near-instant pixel response, and not the fact that the panel may still not update across the board at the same time.

120Hz inputs at 4K are still not commonplace. I agree, it is stupid that it hasn't happened, but it's not a large market for it either - most consumers don't give a damn.

I think 33ms, if true, is plenty fine for gaming. With 50+ms on my current OLED, it's borderline unplayable, but I actually have been managing just fine. I don't know how well the Leo Bodnar plays with OLED, but you have to consider than <1ms of pixel response vs LCDs which take 10+ms is going to be something to factor in as well. I doubt the Leo can react fast enough to that kind of instantaneous change which may be why some results are all over the place.

I plan on buying the new OLED when it gets released (not the G6, because that's too damn big and expensive), but that will be a few months sadly.
 
Nitemare3219 said:
Adaptive sync only matters below the max refresh rate. After that it's back to V-sync on/off, so you can't avoid that latency unless you want tearing.

As far as subtracting, are you saying the vertical scan on these OLED panels is still noticeable? I guess I only considered the near-instant pixel response, and not the fact that the panel may still not update across the board at the same time.

120Hz inputs at 4K are still not commonplace. I agree, it is stupid that it hasn't happened, but it's not a large market for it either - most consumers don't give a damn.

I think 33ms, if true, is plenty fine for gaming. With 50+ms on my current OLED, it's borderline unplayable, but I actually have been managing just fine. I don't know how well the Leo Bodnar plays with OLED, but you have to consider than <1ms of pixel response vs LCDs which take 10+ms is going to be something to factor in as well. I doubt the Leo can react fast enough to that kind of instantaneous change which may be why some results are all over the place.

I plan on buying the new OLED when it gets released (not the G6, because that's too damn big and expensive), but that will be a few months sadly.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I will be getting the 55 C curved, it will be a nice improvement over the 1080p oled I have and a little bit less lag which is good.

I still plan to buy the 4k Leo Bodnar lag tester when it is available at the end of this month and as soon as these oleds are in the stores, I will go test them out and post on here the numbers.
 
MaZa said:
These are 4K TV's. 60hz is the max we have bandwidth for with current hardware. 120hz @ 1080p however would be possible but these use passive tech for 3D so i bet it processes internally everything in 60hz too.
Click to expand...
DisplayPort 1.3 and USB-C should be able to handle 4K120.
But I'd be more interested in 1080p120 on these displays anyway, if they had an integer scaling option.

Nitemare3219 said:
Adaptive sync only matters below the max refresh rate. After that it's back to V-sync on/off, so you can't avoid that latency unless you want tearing.
Click to expand...
So cap at 59 FPS. (or 119)

Nitemare3219 said:
As far as subtracting, are you saying the vertical scan on these OLED panels is still noticeable? I guess I only considered the near-instant pixel response, and not the fact that the panel may still not update across the board at the same time.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they still update on scanout instead of buffering the frame and then using accelerated scanout or updating globally.
So measuring halfway down the screen will add 8ms at 60Hz.
Never understood why reviewers measure the middle instead of the top of the screen. That would be useful for setting up audio sync, not determining the processing latency of a display.

Nitemare3219 said:
I think 33ms, if true, is plenty fine for gaming.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it becomes 67ms or greater with V-Sync at 60Hz, which is totally unplayable.
I don't consider gaming with V-Sync off to be an acceptable option - especially at 60Hz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top