LG 48CX

[elvn]

I agree that 40" would be a minimum comfortable viewing distance for a 48" monitor singly, and up to 48".


------------------------------------------------------

Space and home design are issues for a lot of people. I have a dedicated PC room which is relatively small at around 11.5' x 9.5' personally. I'll be clearing out a bookshelf and a reading chair and some misc stuff.

A lot of people choose to not design their room and setup around their displays and sound system because of what room constraints and priorities they have... the pc as a media command center/station/studio often comes last. If you were setting up a theater or a studio of any kind (photography, sound studio with mics/recording and playback hardware and a mixing studio desk, etc) you wouldn't have the option of flipping the priorities around. I saw a similar dynamic when the idea of a parlour living room was changed into a home theater for some people as larger TV and better surround systems became available - while others resisted dedicating their living room to a theater setup. A lot of people would stuff a small pc in a mini desk in a front hall or bedroom like a bookshelf too. It really depends on your tastes and priorities, usage scenarios, what space and layouts you have available. and of course to a degree - budget.

------------------------------------------------------------

For my future setup design the only things in the room footprint will be:

- narrow long "obtuse J" bench like regular desk up against a wall. I mount my monitors, hands-off peripherals, and surround receiver on this.
- PC strapped to the side of that desk with a black spun fabric bungie cord. The PC case on top of black plastic small office style "milk crates" set sideways as a base (solid black "top" facing out).
- moveable 1/2 circle "kidney bean" shaped command center desk on large "roller blade" style caster wheels. Connected via a bound "umbilical cord" of peripheral cables/ext cables.
- chair on large "rollerblade" style wheels, with headrest and armrests (and footrest being a stock panel built into the kidney shaped desk across the bottom - it came like that, works well).
-
Misc other stuff:
-my fold down G29 steering wheel+shifter kit along the wall
-a black mini ottoman to my lower right for my cat(s) or to set my VR headest on.
- 3D Rudder floor plate controller and a dual pedal foot controller... probably keep them set them up on on the foot panel beneath the kidney shaped desk but may have to secure them better.
-some small style speaker stands for the side and rear channels tucked up against the walls.


The idea is that I'll be able to roll my desk and chair right up against the desk (with the kidney shaped desk overlapping the main desk a bit) when not using the PC or if I want to at times use the room as a small VR space or do some pushup blocks, ab roll wheel , etc. I'd also be able to move the desk and chair nearer or farther when doing 21:10 resolution, playing racing games, etc too.

 

[DrekkenRidge]

I don't mind multi monitor setups however I would never try to game across multiple monitors especially with the bezels breaking up the displays.

My current desk is 31 1/2 ft deep which would put me about 2 1/2 ft from the TV. I'm not sure that's enough. I don't want to feel like I am sitting in the front row of a movie theater which is my biggest fear. If I had to buy a new desk just for this to work then I would just skip this TV until OLED's come down to more reasonable sizes whenever that may be.

As for performance I am hoping that DLSS 2.0 will make a bigger splash. I'm expecting CP 2077 to have it with how closely they are working with NVIDIA on the game. The downside is o

I just noticed when I originally responded saying I thought your viewing distance was a bit too close, I had calculated 36 inches, but you said 2.5 feet, which is 30 inches. IMO that is way too close and you will certainly get that front row of a movie theater effect; so you'd either need a deeper desk (by about a foot) or pull the desk out a bit and mount the TV behind on a stand. I would recommend though being precise and sit in a normal position the way you do daily and use a tape measure literally from your head to the screen, and see exactly what the measurement is.

Just anecdotally, based on what everyone is saying, I wouldn't hold my breath on smaller OLED TVs due to production cost scaling issues.

 

[kasakka]

VERY interesting logic that some of you are using when I hear, "It's just too large of a display." So, this would also mean "you" would never have a multi monitor setup? A larger screen is the same exact thing minus all the bezels.

Except it isn't. With multiple monitors you can arrange them. You can angle them so they are facing you in a nicer way. You can turn some of them off when you don't need them. You can plug in different sources like say two computers to show them on individual screens. When gaming you can have a dedicated monitor for say Discord, YouTube etc without it affecting your gameplay. With a single display you need a Picture by Picture mode for this which the LGs do not have (at least one that allows multiple HDMI sources) and that usually prevents things like adaptive sync and HDR.

Now there is benefit to having a large single display with no bezels and that is putting content in the area between the bezels. With four individual monitors like in your pic this would be kinda awful to use but with a single display it's no problem.

The 48" model is better just because it causes less issues with viewing distance so less need for very deep desks etc.

 

[damstr]

I just noticed when I originally responded saying I thought your viewing distance was a bit too close, I had calculated 36 inches, but you said 2.5 feet, which is 30 inches. IMO that is way too close and you will certainly get that front row of a movie theater effect; so you'd either need a deeper desk (by about a foot) or pull the desk out a bit and mount the TV behind on a stand. I would recommend though being precise and sit in a normal position the way you do daily and use a tape measure literally from your head to the screen, and see exactly what the measurement is.

Just anecdotally, based on what everyone is saying, I wouldn't hold my breath on smaller OLED TVs due to production cost scaling issues.

Something I just though of is I could run a custom resolution and only use part of the OLED screen via a borderless window. I would get the benefit of running OLED and a lower resolution which means I wouldn't have to sit nearly as far as I would if I were using the entire TV screen and it would be easier to drive.

EDIT: Example, my current monitor has a resolution of 3440x1440p. I could run that custom resolution in game and it would only take up part of the screen on a 4k monitor. Does that sound like it would work?

 

[sirsad]

Something I just though of is I could run a custom resolution and only use part of the OLED screen via a borderless window. I would get the benefit of running OLED and a lower resolution which means I wouldn't have to sit nearly as far as I would if I were using the entire TV screen and it would be easier to drive.

EDIT: Example, my current monitor has a resolution of 3440x1440p. I could run that custom resolution in game and it would only take up part of the screen on a 4k monitor. Does that sound like it would work?

I believe this was mentioned in this thread or some of the other large monitor threads.

 

[elvn]

I mentioned that I had set up a 3840 x 1600 rez with bars on my 43" TCL 4k on the left of my setup awhile back in this thread. It seemed to work fine just adding the custom rez via nvidia's control panel and turning off all scaling in the other headings in the control panel index. I'm hoping that it will work as easily on a LG CX.

Not necessarily. At least on my LG C9 I could not get it to output anything more than the 16:9 resolutions it supports out of the box. It just gives me garbled or no image if I try to run for example 3840x1600 using the TV's scaler. Only way to do that is to use GPU scaling, which with HDMI 2.0 limits you to 60 Hz (or probably 120 Hz 8-bit 4:2:0 on the CX) since the GPU upscales the image to 4K.

If anything, running a lower resolution that cuts some of the screen away at the top and bottom should free up more display bandwidth.

I just set up a 3840x1600 custom rez on my TCL S405 4k , 60hz screen from a 1080ti gpu over hdmi 2.0 no problem using nvidia control panel. The size and position were... "select as scaling mode: aspect ratio", "perform scaling on: display" .. by default... but I switched them to "select scaling mode: No scaling". It works perfectly with a black bar at the top and bottom.

All monitors can do it (that I have ever tried), you simply get black bars. Normally it doesn't make sense (unless some specific game allows you to see more in 21:9 and you want an advantage), but on such a big screen with bandwidth constraints on current gpu's, it could be worth it. Maybe permanently on a shallow desk/limited depth space.

I have zero problem with black bars, especially once I get a 48" OLED where BLACK = OFF pixel emitter. If I was more picky about it I would just paint my wall black or use a black backdrop.

You still end up with a pretty huge screen at 17.4" tall and 41.8" wide.

I could also sit closer for 21:10 gameplay which would make the screen even larger to my perspective .. especially if I'm playing a racing/offroad game for immersion where I wouldn't be seeing content in focus on the sides without moving my head.

.
-------------------------------------------------


---48" display 23.5" tall. 2160px tall divided by 23.5" = 91.91489 px per inch. (Or just figure by multiplying by % of screen the pixel count is)
--- So if my calculations are correct:

1600px high ~> 17.5" tall letterboxed ... leaving 3" top and 3" bottom bars

.
So........

- A 48" 16:9 tv displaying 21:10 letterboxed 3840x1600 content 1:1 would be ~17.4" tall viewable screen out of 23.5" originally.

- 35.7" 16:9 .. a 17.5" tall 1600p 21:10 mode letterboxed 48" is the same height as a 35.7" 16:9 screen but the 48" screen is 10.8" wider (or adds 5.4" to each side of a 35.7" screen)

- A 40" 16:9 monitor's regular display is around 19.6" tall.

- A 43" 16:9 monitor's regular display is around 21.1" tall. The bars on my 43" screen at 21:10 end up being 2 7/8" tall (measured with a measuring tape) - in both the top and the bottom which is in the ballpark of my per pixel height calculations.



-my 32" 16:9 is around 15.7" tall so the 48" in 21:10 would be just under 2" taller (and about 14" or +7"+/7"wider).

 

[burburbur]

The problem with running a virtual resolution like that is that you end up with black bars for the rest of the screen. You can't use that real estate for discord, browser, media, etc. There are programs like display fusion that allow you to emulate multiple monitors within one screen, but these generally don't work with fullscreen modes in games and break VRR features. I'd love to grab a screen like this to replace multiple monitors and to game in a standard 16:9 window in the monitor, but as far as I've seen there is no efficient way to do it. You either lose the rest of the screen real estate while in game or lose VRR capability.

 

[damstr]

The problem with running a virtual resolution like that is that you end up with black bars for the rest of the screen. You can't use that real estate for discord, browser, media, etc. There are programs like display fusion that allow you to emulate multiple monitors within one screen, but these generally don't work with fullscreen modes in games and break VRR features. I'd love to grab a screen like this to replace multiple monitors and to game in a standard 16:9 window in the monitor, but as far as I've seen there is no efficient way to do it. You either lose the rest of the screen real estate while in game or lose VRR capability.

What I meant was custom in game resolution only. I wouldn't run Windows in that custom resolution. I'm not sure every game would support it though. I would think so as long as it's a lower resolution than native?

 

[elvn]

I don't mind swapping to 21:10 for certain games. Black bars on an oled are OFF, ultra black at the pixel level. If having a black, ultra off-black frame bothered me enough I'd do a black wall hanging or paint the wall black behind the screen... same 'dif.

I'll be using other 4k monitor(s) alongside this one anyway so I'll still have a lot of desktop real-estate either way. I don't think I've run a single monitor since 2006, maybe earlier.

If the PCM issue still exists on the CX, I guarantee the PC mode HDR/banding issue will be there as well.

Hope the uncompressed audio via eARC is working like sirsad said.

 

[Martha Stewart]

VERY interesting logic that some of you are using when I hear, "It's just too large of a display." So, this would also mean "you" would never have a multi monitor setup? A larger screen is the same exact thing minus all the bezels. Especially at 4K which this monitor is a contender with it's 120hz @ 4K if you concider gaming .... also, nVidia's next generation Ampre is due to ship later this year. They are suggesting 20 - 30% increase is GPU performance. This would put 4K @ 120hz in the 100fps range on ultra settings. We are still 3 - 4 years away before we get 120 - 144hz @ 4K gaming performance. And this is only if we see a 20% gain in 2022 and another 20% gain in 2024. Anyways.

Something for everyone here to consider.

I'm in a tuff spot only because I have a Samsung NU8000 55" that does 120hz @ 1440p. I want this display, trust me but I wouldn't be gaining a whole lot. Size I have, fast refresh rate, I have, low input lag, I have. However the OLED, black levels / contrast would be nice. BTW, 2019 55" Samsung's can be found right now in the $600 range if your main concerns are the size and refresh rates. Just putting that out there.

I think what I will do is just use the money I have earmarked for this display and get the new 3080 ti. I'm still not sure. I really wish I could see one of these in person with game content on the screen.

But, who knows. I still think $1500 is a bit much.

In closing, I want to make a suggestion to those of you worried about the size of this display vs your current desktop. These is absolutely NOTHING stopping any of you from changing out your ... what I am going to assume is a consumer grade desk, whatever you may have to a larger commercial desk.

When I moved to the 55", I was already using a larger commercial desk that was much wider. Many of you should have access to a used office furniture location. Call around and go take a look. You will all be surprised at how larger some of these desks are and not just that but commerical desks are also built much more robust vs, for example, the L shaped glass desk you might have. Commercial desks are usually a bit longer and a bit wider as many of you will know.

Below, my 55" on a commercial desk. I'm a good 4 1/2 feet from this 55" And, for those of you that insist on having all those terrible bezels because this somehow makes having a lot of display area on your desk ... acceptable .. I've re-added in the bezels for those types so ya'll can feel better. lol.

What did my used commercial desk cost me? $75

Oh, and having a 120hz mouse cursor is .... really addicting.

View attachment 240794View attachment 240795

I've been there done that with huge monitors (I should know I was rocking this 55" OLED as a monitor 3 years ago and it sucks)




You're wrong on several points

1-PPI sucks
2-Multi monitors are made for peripheral vision unlike one giant screen
3-Now that you have one giant monitor on your desk, what happens if you need another to run multiple programs, or PCs, etc.? Now you're out of desk space AGAIN and what.... Just go buy a bigger house now?

 

[elvn]

Yeah I'm dropping back farther and farther lol. 30" -36" became 40" +.. now will become 40" - 48" away after this.

At least regarding PPI and physical screen, the father you sit it shrinks the screen size and the PPI tigheter to your perspective so yes, it's a matter of having the space. It's more like viewing a TV in a smaller TV viewing room but from your desk island, or having a command center with a master view screen or stage. Once of the biggest disconnects people seem to have is breaking away from the idea that their tv~monitor has to be at or on the desk itself for some reason.

Actually the farther away I move, I'm verging on the opposite becoming true, especially with multiple monitors - the ppi is going to to become too small to use at 1:1 scaling anymore unless I keep within a certain distance threshold, especially for the smallest text types.


In the farther off future we'll probably all have AR screens and envrionments so view space will become irrelevant at that point. Though any room scale movement stuff require's considerable space, you can play VR/AR games sitting down or standing in place using controllers without a problem (depending on the game). You can also map virtual screens anywhere you want relative to your viewpoint.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I've been there done that with huge monitors (I should know I was rocking this 55" OLED as a monitor 3 years ago and it sucks)



View attachment 240883
You're wrong on several points

1-PPI sucks
2-Multi monitors are made for peripheral vision unlike one giant screen
3-Now that you have one giant monitor on your desk, what happens if you need another to run multiple programs, or PCs, etc.? Now you're out of desk space AGAIN and what.... Just go buy a bigger house now?

His panel also only runs 1440p at 120Hz not 4k. Way worse blacks and contrast than an Oled like the LG CX to boot. Honestly I think he doesn't care about being right, he just wants to justify his purchase for some weird reason in this thread.

 

[SixFootDuo]

I've been there done that with huge monitors (I should know I was rocking this 55" OLED as a monitor 3 years ago and it sucks)



View attachment 240883
You're wrong on several points

1-PPI sucks
2-Multi monitors are made for peripheral vision unlike one giant screen
3-Now that you have one giant monitor on your desk, what happens if you need another to run multiple programs, or PCs, etc.? Now you're out of desk space AGAIN and what.... Just go buy a bigger house now?

It sucked for you? Okay. Yeah, I would go back to a 24" or a 27" If the 55" was too much, I wouldn't recommend a 32". This should get you back into your comfort zone. Good luck.

 

[GoldenTiger]

It sucked for you? Okay. Yeah, I would go back to a 24" or a 27" If the 55" was too much, I wouldn't recommend a 32". This should get you back into your comfort zone. Good luck.

?

 

[SixFootDuo]

His panel also only runs 1440p at 120Hz not 4k. Way worse blacks and contrast than an Oled like the LG CX to boot. Honestly I think he doesn't care about being right, he just wants to justify his purchase for some weird reason in this thread.

I should point out to you that 1440p @ 120hz is the sweet spot for gaming right now. Nothing wrong with 1440p or 120hz. if and only if you have a 2080 ti ... you can push 1440p @ 120hz @ high / ultra settings.

If I pick up this 48" and I still may do that, 4K gaming still isn't there when it comes to using high refresh rates, I think high / ultra settings @4K gets you around 50 - 60+ FPS on a 2080 Ti.

Lot of people will be using 1440p on the 48" for gaming unless they are casual gamer's and or don't mind 50 - 60fps @4K.

That's another thing I should point out. If you do not have a 2080 ti, and you're a gamer, this display would almost be pointless to buy. Remember, I am talking about you hard core gamers out there. This thing will still be great at desktop / productivity. Gaming without a powerful video card? Not so sure about that.

Remember, it takes a lot of horse power to push 120hz native ( 120 FPS ) @ 1440p and 4K. ....... a ... lot .......

For me, this 48" CX only makes sense in terms of a purchase for me for the high refresh rates and the OLED and contrast. I am still not very clear if this has low input lag or not. I think I saw 14 - 16ms mentioned? That's absolutely not going to work for me.

 

[GoldenTiger]

I should point out to you that 1440p @ 120hz is the sweet spot for gaming right now. Nothing wrong with 1440p or 120hz. if and only if you have a 2080 ti ... you can push 1440p @ 120hz @ high / ultra settings.

If I pick up this 48" and I still may do that, 4K gaming still isn't there when it comes to using high refresh rates, I think high / ultra settings @4K gets you around 50 - 60+ FPS on a 2080 Ti.

Lot of people will be using 1440p on the 48" for gaming unless they are casual gamer's and or don't mind 50 - 60fps @4K.

That's another thing I should point out. If you do not have a 2080 ti, and you're a gamer, this display would almost be pointless to buy. Remember, I am talking about you hard core gamers out there. This thing will still be great at desktop / productivity. Gaming without a powerful video card? Not so sure about that.

Remember, it takes a lot of horse power to push 120hz native ( 120 FPS ) @ 1440p and 4K. ....... a ... lot .......

For me, this 48" CX only makes sense in terms of a purchase for me for the high refresh rates and the OLED and contrast. I am still not very clear if this has low input lag or not. I think I saw 14 - 16ms mentioned? That's absolutely not going to work for me.

Try 6ms,and having an idea of what you're talking about first. Dlss 2.0 is a game changer, and the 3080 next gen is close. Look, we're all n happy you like your older monitor. But enough thread derailment about it. You obviously have no interest in it.

 

[elvn]

They've quoted as low as 6ms. Unless you have a common frame rate LOW of 120fps at 120hz you aren't even getting 8.3ms per frame so it's pretty negligible input lag. Most people use VRR (g-sync, free-sync, HDMI variable refresh rate) in order to pump the graphics settings a bit higher and ride a fluctuating frame rate plus and minus 15, 20, even 30fps from "my framerate" which = your frame rate average. That is unless you are playing CSGO or L4D2 or something that gets like 300fps to start with.

----------------------------------

...

BFI can be disabled but here's the thing, none of the input lag tests that have been done so far have been done at native resolution at 120hz so we still have no idea what the actual input lag numbers for PC use will be. Wait for the Rtings review.


We suspect that this display can do around 5 to 6ms input lag at 4k at 120hz because that was what LG claimed at CES and they have been honest about that number for the last few years.

5 to 6ms is well under the fluctuating wave of frame rates most people are going to be rolling at 4k resolution when using VRR and a moderate frame rate average where the lower ranges of their actual frame rates aren't above 100fps-Hz.... (10ms per frame).

.....

I'll be happy with ~6ms on a monitor with such great OLED per pixel visuals and other features (hdmi 2.1, VRR, 120hz 4k 4:4:4, etc.) while also not being limited to a slim ~13' tall or so belt model .


120hz is 8.3ms per frame and that is only if, even if ignoring a few frame rate "potholes" in your graph, you are getting 120fps solid all of the time as a common frame rate low.... which most people aren't in any kind of demanding games and settings near or at 4k resolution.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


120fps-Hz (solid, not average):

.................8.3ms per frame

.................50% reduction in sample and hold blur to a "soften blur" compared to baseline 60fps-Hz smearing blur (~ 8ms persistence vs 16ms persistence)

.................double the motion definition 2:1 ("# of unique pages~action states in a flip book flipping twice as fast"), incl. viewport movement, path articulation

................. 10 frames shown to every 5 at 60fps-Hz solid

................. 10 frames to every 8.3 shown at 100fps-Hz solide

................. 10 frames to every 10Hz refresh on a 120hz screen at 120fps solid (1:1)



115fps-Hz rate cap (solid frame rate, not average)

................. 8.7ms per frame

................ ~ 45% +?? reduction in sample in hold blur (8.7ms image persistence)


100fps-Hz (solid, not average):

................. 10ms per frame

................. ~40% reduction in sample and hold blur (10ms image persistence)

................. 10 frames to every 6 shown at 60fps-Hz solid (1.6:1)

................. 10 frames to ever 10 shown at 100fps-Hz solid

................. 10 frames to every 12 shown at 120fps-hz solid (1.2:1, 20fps-hz short of 120fps-hz)


75fps-Hz (solid, not average):

................. 13.3ms per frame

................. 15 ??? % reduction in sample and hold blur? (13.3ms persistence) .. still smearing blur, slightly moderated

................. 10 frames to every 8 shown at 60fps-Hz solid (1.25:1)

................. 10 frames to every 13 shown at 100fps-Hz solid (1.3:1)

................. 10 frames to every 16 shown at 120fps-Hz solid (1.6:1)


60fps-Hz (solid, not average):

................. 16.6ms per frame

................. baseline "100%" smearing blur "outside of the lines" of individual objects as well as viewport movement of the whole game world at speed

................. 1:1 motion definition vs 60fps-Hz baseline

................. 10 frames at 60fps-Hz to every 16.6 frames shown at 100fps-Hz

.................. [6 frames to every 10 shown at 100fps-Hz solid (5:3)]

..................10 frames at 60fps-Hz to every 20 frames shown at 120fps-Hz

.................. [5 frames to every 10 shown at 120fps-Hz solid (2:1, half)]


40fps-Hz (solid, not average):

................. 25ms per frame

................. baseline smearing blur (or worse) page-y choppy motion , sluggish

................. 10 frames to every 15 shown at 60fps-Hz solid (1.5:1)

................. 10 frames to every 25 shown at 100fps-Hz solid (2.5:1)

................. 10 frames to every 30 shown at 120fps-Hz solid (3:1)


30fps-Hz (solid, not average):

................. 33.3ms per frame

................. smearing blur, page-y/choppy animations ~ "molasses" movement and FoV movement ~ motion definition

................. 10 frames to every 20 shown at 60fps-Hz solid

................. 10 frames to every 30 shown at 100fps-Hz solid

................. 10 frames to every 40 shown at 120fps-Hz solid




(source of image below: back2gaming.com)

 

[MistaSparkul]

Lol those Samsung TV's have had way more lag (20+ms) until just recently like last year's set or something so I really don't see why 14-16ms (which the CX doesn't even have anyway) is now suddenly unacceptable.

 

[NukeDukem]

I'm fairly sensitive to input lag and the CX seems very responsive to me. I don't think it will be an issue for anyone but the stingiest of competitive twitch shooter gamers. If you're a pro Quake player you aren't in the market for an immersive big screen monitor anyway.

 

[Lateralus]

Thread is at risk of turning into a shit show...let’s try to ignore the trolls and educate where we can. You guys are doing a good job of providing awesome info!

We know what we want. The 48” can’t come soon enough!

 

[SixFootDuo]

Try 6ms,and having an idea of what you're talking about first. Dlss 2.0 is a game changer, and the 3080 next gen is close. Look, we're all n happy you like your older monitor. But enough thread derailment about it. You obviously have no interest in it.

Forget about my display. My display has nothing to do with anything. it's no different than others here who are talking about their displays, or desks or whatnot. Why you singled me out is .. just weird. Yes I discussed it a few times but as I mentioned it has nothing to do with anything. Why you thread crapped on me, went way off course is a little bit weird. You do not know me so do not make it personal. If I like something about my current setup, and share that, it doesn't mean I'm trying to derail anything. Sounds like you have some sort of personal gripe me with. Maybe, figure that out on your own? Please, not this tread.

Please, focus .. and not on me.

Chances are, I will have this display before most.

I am considering getting this display. Like others, I have some issues and concerns. For some it's the size, for others, like myself, it might be other equally important issues.

I thought input lag went way up when you had certain features enabled. I was trying to understand this black screen insertion feature.

They have the 55" in stock at Best Buy, I will probably pick it up tomorrow or at least by Friday. I will move the 55" Samsung to the bedroom.

My current 55" sets about 3" above the desk top. I wonder if this sets any lower.

Another thing I am reading is there is burn-in with OLED? I did not know this. Another concern. I do game a lot but I don't think 3 - 4 hours of WoW or 2 or 3 hours of COD will damage this display. Hoping not. I am going to try and find more information about OLED burn-in tonight.

 

[SixFootDuo]

Lol those Samsung TV's have had way more lag (20+ms) until just recently like last year's set or something so I really don't see why 14-16ms (which the CX doesn't even have anyway) is now suddenly unacceptable.

The NUxxxxxx is about 9ms.

I would love for this new CX 55" or 48" to have 6ms.

I'm planning on buying the 55" in the next few days.

 

[MistaSparkul]

The NUxxxxxx is about 9ms.

I would love for this new CX 55" or 48" to have 6ms.

I'm planning on buying the 55" in the next few days.

Ok so at worst case scenario the CX would have an extra 7ms input latency and even then it's total input lag would still be perfectly acceptable for just casual gaming. Those are super serious about playing competitive twitch shooters or anything along those lines most likely wouldn't even be considering using a 48"-55" TV anyways and would look towards a 1080p240Hz monitor. Yes the CX still has a few other concerns as a desktop monitor but I just don't think input lag can really be considered one of them.

 

[SixFootDuo]

Ok just checked and it's not only in stock but on sale. This is the correct model right?

I'll pick this up tomorrow. That seems like a great price. I will also use my tax id to avoid taxes.

 

[SixFootDuo]

Ok so at worst case scenario the CX would have an extra 7ms input latency and even then it's total input lag would still be perfectly acceptable for just casual gaming. Those are super serious about playing competitive twitch shooters or anything along those lines most likely wouldn't even be considering using a 48"-55" TV anyways and would look towards a 1080p240Hz monitor. Yes the CX still has a few other concerns as a desktop monitor but I just don't think input lag can really be considered one of them.

7ms is fantastic

 

[NM64]

This is the correct model right?

Yes that's the correct model, albeit the 55" model of course.

I think what I will do is just use the money I have earmarked for this display and get the new 3080 ti. I'm still not sure. I really wish I could see one of these in person with game content on the screen.

But, who knows. I still think $1500 is a bit much.

By the time a 3080Ti is a thing, I really doubt the 48" CX will still be $1500. Historically LG's OLED TVs drop supstantially over the years - the 55" C9 debuted at $2500 and stuck to that until mid-May, but by October it had dropped to $1500 (it went up a bit again until Thanksgiving) and is still $1500 to this day:
https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B07PTN79PG

I've been there done that with huge monitors (I should know I was rocking this 55" OLED as a monitor 3 years ago and it sucks)

1-PPI sucks
2-Multi monitors are made for peripheral vision unlike one giant screen

The PPI of the 48" model is exactly the same as the uber-common 1080p 24" monitor. If you're one to feel that 92 PPI "sucks" then so be it - sure it's not great, but considering that even high-end 240Hz monitors are commonly 24" at 1080p then saying it flat-out "sucks" seems a bit extreme.

Also regarding multiple programs and such, this sounds like something that a video hub or whatever they're called would be ideally suited for - you know, the kind of thing that you can feed multiple video inputs into and it then outputs a single video signal so that you can treat a single display as multiple monitors or the like. This would be ideally suited if it worked off of DisplayPort MST so that you could then use just a single video output from your GPU and have your OS see it as 4 different monitors, but then the "video hub device" would output the resulting signal over a single connection such as HDMI in a 2x2 multi-display arrangement or the like.

Obviously such a thing is unlikely to work with VRR or maybe even the 120Hz mode, but since this is a TV one could work around that by also plugging your GPU's HDMI output into a second HDMI input on the TV - that way you have one TV input for multi-"monitor" and another TV input for a single fullscreen "monitor".

 

[Sancus]

We've been over the PPI thing already. TLDR is that unless you're being a weirdo and using it at the same distance as a 24" monitor, it's not an issue.

 

[elvn]

7ms is fantastic

Yeah idk how you are going to react faster than the frames are shown to you. If you have 8ms of lag or less and the monitor does a max of 120hz you'd have to be at 120fps all the time as your low (not your average) to even get down to 8.3ms duration per frame shown. Plus if you are playing online and not on a LAN it becomes even more of a ridiculous point from a competitive angle since there is latency between you and the server, each other players relationship between themselves and the server, and each other players relationship between you and them - and this latency has compensation coding to moderate differences in most games.

If you are running a 240fps minimum range in your frame rate graph ~ 270 fps average lets say on a 240hz monitor you'd be getting about 4.16ms per frame duration but this is a 120Hz monitor so that is 8.3 ms per frame at 120fps constant (say about 150fps average).

At a 115fps-Hz cap (to avoid input lag going over the max Hz of the monitor while using VRR) that is 8.7ms per frame, and would require up to 145fps average for 115 to be the lows. That isn't realistic on most modern aesthetic looking games at 4k resolution, even some from 2015 - 2019 and/or some with mods let alone upcoming games. I hate to even mention RTX which can halve frame rates in some cases and otherwise reduce frame rates a lot where at 4k you have no room to sacrifice frames as it is. So lets say a highly aesthetic graphics based game that has pretty far view distances, detailed textures and FX, shadows on med to high, reflections, water, weather, maybe hair effects, etc... but with RTX disabled might be run at 100fps average or so with VRR enabled. That average could result in something like a 70/80 <-<---100 --->>115cap(130) graph. The frame durations would be around 14.3ms <<----10ms ---> 8.7ms graph, fluctuating up and down throughout your gameplay on this ~ 6ms input lag monitor.

---------------------------------------

This 48" OLED is a multimedia superstar with (using some C9 numbers for now):

-per pixel HDR into the near 860 nit of color volume / color detail range (no dim or glow offset "halos" from FALD)
-SDR color pixel by pixel color brightness detail up to 440nit (no dim or glow offset "halos" from FALD)
- 96% of DCI-P3 and 71% of Rec.2020.
-3rd-gen Alpha 9 processor has an improved dynamic tone mapping system
-tone-mapping adheres to the HGiG specification for console games in HDR so that tone-mapping will not be done twice (first on console and then on the TV).
-
-per pixel black depth/contrast of "infinite":1 .. providing black depths of nil-zip-zero-off where even a non FALD VA tv is lucky to get 6000:1. Gaming monitors are 860:1 to 1000:1 and around .14 - .16 black depth without FALD.
-HDMI 2.1 for 4:4:4 chroma at 4k 120hz, VRR off of upcoming hdmi 2.1 gpus (and consoles reportedly)

~ 6ms -ish range of input lag on a (at best, at very high frame rates ~ 150fps average) 8.3ms frame duration display. The C9 was 6.8ms input lag at 1080p 120hz, 6.6ms input lag at 1440p 120hz.. so 4k 120hz should be near 6ms ballpark if comparable to the C9.
- not limited to a short 13" tall belt monitor format

-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

No gaming monitors can match this currently. I don't know of any with hdmi 2.1 yet even for some future proofing for the 3000 series gpus. That alone is a deal breaker to me.

The PPI of the 48" model is exactly the same as the uber-common 1080p 24" monitor. If you're one feel that 92 PPI "sucks" then so be it - sure it's not great, but considering that even high-end 240Hz monitors are commonly 24" at 1080p then saying it flat-out "sucks" seems a bit extreme.

At what several of us are agreeing with as a reasonable minimum viewing distance for these TVs-as-monitors being 40" (to 48"), the ppi to your perspective probably goes back to near 108.8 ppi looking like the ppi of a 27" 1440p would be at 1.5' to 2' away to your eyes. I'm sitting ~ 46 inches away from my 43" monitors right now because I have my chair set back.at the moment. if I were to go any farther away I'd have to start scaling higher than 1:1, especially for the tiniest of text types on some apps.

We've been over the PPI thing already. TLDR is that unless you're being a weirdo and using it at the same distance as a 24" monitor, it's not an issue.

 

[SixFootDuo]

I'm 51, I can promise you for myself and possibly others that wear glasses or contacts or are in their 40's or 50's with naturally occurring degraded eyesight, PPI is almost never an issue lol.

 

[SixFootDuo]

Yeah idk how you are going to react faster than the frames are shown to you. If you have 8ms of lag or less and the monitor does a max of 120hz you'd have to be at 120fps all the time as your low (not your average) to even get down to 8.3ms duration per frame shown. Plus if you are playing online and not on a LAN it becomes even more of a ridiculous point from a competitive angle since there is latency between you and the server, each other players relationship between themselves and the server, and each other players relationship between you and them - and this latency has compensation coding to moderate differences in most games.

If you are running a 240fps minimum range in your frame rate graph ~ 270 fps average lets say on a 240hz monitor you'd be getting about 4.16ms per frame duration but this is a 120Hz monitor so that is 8.3 ms per frame at 120fps constant (say about 150fps average).

At a 115fps-Hz cap (to avoid input lag going over the max Hz of the monitor while using VRR) that is 8.7ms per frame, and would require up to 145fps average for 115 to be the lows. That isn't realistic on most modern aesthetic looking games at 4k resolution, even some from 2015 - 2019 and/or some with mods let alone upcoming games. I hate to even mention RTX which can halve frame rates in some cases and otherwise reduce frame rates a lot where at 4k you have no room to lose frame rates already. So lets say a highly aesthetic graphics based game that has pretty far view distances, detailed textures and FX, shadows on med to high, reflections, water, weather, maybe hair effects, etc... but with RTX disabled might be run at 100fps average or so with VRR enabled. That average could result in something like a 70/80 <-<---100 --->>115cap(130) graph. The frame times would be around 14.3ms <<----10ms ---> 8.7ms graph, fluctuating up and down throughout your gameplay.

---------------------------------------

This 48" OLED is a multimedia superstar with (using some C9 numbers for now):

-per pixel HDR into the near 860 nit of color volume / color detail range (no dim or glow offset "halos" from FALD)
-SDR color pixel by pixel color brightness detail up to 440nit (no dim or glow offset "halos" from FALD)
-per pixel black depth/contrast of "infinite":1 .. providing black depths of nil-zip-zero-off where even a non FALD VA tv is lucky to get 6000:1. Gaming monitors are 860:1 to 1000:1 and around .14 - .16 black depth without FALD.
-HDMI 2.1 for 4:4:4 chroma at 4k 120hz, VRR
~ 6ms -ish range of input lag on a (at best, at very high frame rates ~ 150fps average) 8.3ms frame duration display. The C9 was 6.8ms input lag at 1080p 120hz, 6.6ms input lag at 1440p 120hz.. so 4k 120hz should be near 6ms ballpark if comparable to the C9.
- not limited to a short 13" tall belt monitor format

-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

No gaming monitors can match this currently. I don't know of any with hdmi 2.1 yet even for some future proofing for the 3000 series gpus. That alone is a deal breaker to me.



At what several of us are agreeing with as a reasonable minimum viewing distance for these TVs-as-monitors being 40" (to 48"), the ppi to your perspective probably goes back to near 108.8 ppi looking like the ppi of a 27" 1440p would be at 1.5' to 2' away to your eyes. I'm sitting ~ 46 inches away from my 43" monitors right now because I have my chair set back.at the moment. if I were to go any farther away I'd have to start scaling higher than 1:1, especially for the tiniest of text types on some apps.

Come to think of it, I wonder if more TV manufactures besides LG and Samsung venture into these sizes of TV's ( 48" for LG ) to possibly capture some of the PC gaming community market as they tinker to compete / add in performance functionality in the common years. I am really excited to see what CES 2021 holds. One can only expect Samsung to possibly match LG's 48" ..... and I suspect Sony might join into the fray.

 

[kasakka]

Also regarding multiple programs and such, this sounds like something that a video hub or whatever they're called would be ideally suited for - you know, the kind of thing that you can feed multiple video inputs into and it then outputs a single video signal so that you can treat a single display as multiple monitors or the like. This would be ideally suited if it worked off of DisplayPort MST so that you could then use just a single video output from your GPU and have your OS see it as 4 different monitors, but then the "video hub device" would output the resulting signal over a single connection such as HDMI in a 2x2 multi-display arrangement or the like.

Obviously such a thing is unlikely to work with VRR or maybe even the 120Hz mode, but since this is a TV one could work around that by also plugging your GPU's HDMI output into a second HDMI input on the TV - that way you have one TV input for multi-"monitor" and another TV input for a single fullscreen "monitor".

I looked into these at one point and the ones capable of 4K 60 Hz cost more than the LG CX itself. Everything else was 4K 30 Hz at most and still very expensive.

 

[N4CR]

Come to think of it, I wonder if more TV manufactures besides LG and Samsung venture into these sizes of TV's ( 48" for LG ) to possibly capture some of the PC gaming community market as they tinker to compete / add in performance functionality in the common years. I am really excited to see what CES 2021 holds. One can only expect Samsung to possibly match LG's 48" ..... and I suspect Sony might join into the fray.

Sony will use LG panels? IIRC so it is possible.
I don't think they will target PC gamers exclusively, that said they have with marketing initially but I bet it will be more aimed at console gamers in due course as well.

I looked into these at one point and the ones capable of 4K 60 Hz cost more than the LG CX itself. Everything else was 4K 30 Hz at most and still very expensive.

You can do that with software it's pretty easy.

 

[kasakka]

You can do that with software it's pretty easy.

Any recommendations and how to do this? I am assuming some sort of RDP setup which means you are at the mercy of network lag, image compression etc.

 

[elvn]

personally I am ruling this OLED tv~monitor out as a desktop app and text based site monitor. It's going to be for gaming and for running videos, video streams, and slideshows/screen savers/audio visualizations - all being some form of active moving theater with this monitor being the stage.

Otherwise the OLED wallpaper will be black with no icons or toolbar. I'll use other monitors for static desktop/app stuff. So for me I have no interest in compartmentalizing the display to leave static elements/windows on it. You can get a side 4k monitor TV for like $230 now or consider using your old monitor for now if you an fit it into your layout well enough size and distance wise.

 

[DrekkenRidge]

At what several of us are agreeing with as a reasonable minimum viewing distance for these TVs-as-monitors being 40" (to 48"), the ppi to your perspective probably goes back to near 108.8 ppi looking like the ppi of a 27" 1440p would be at 1.5' to 2' away to your eyes. I'm sitting ~ 46 inches away from my 43" monitors right now because I have my chair set back.at the moment. if I were to go any farther away I'd have to start scaling higher than 1:1, especially for the tiniest of text types on some apps.

Exactly. If the distance were the same as a 24" monitor (which is obviously unfeasible) or if the subjective quality of the 48" OLED were the same as a 24 inch 1080p monitor, there's zero chance I would buy it. But doubling the distance should make it fine.

 

[DrekkenRidge]

On another note, does anyone have any update or specific information about the US release date for the 48"? Is it still just "June"? I've seen the 55" on both Best Buy and Amazon for awhile. I plan on going BB route for the burn in protection as this is my first OLED (as unlikely as it may be).

 

[elvn]

Apparently so far they still think the LG 2020 lineup should still ship on schedule:

https://www.cnet.com/news/lgs-2020-oled-tvs-ship-soon-start-at-1500-and-go-up-to-30000/

They are supposed to be on schedule but historically they drop around 22% by the time black friday hits so some people will probably wait it out and in doing so be more in line with the nvidia 3000 series gpu releases too.

 

[Armenius]

On another note, does anyone have any update or specific information about the US release date for the 48"? Is it still just "June"? I've seen the 55" on both Best Buy and Amazon for awhile. I plan on going BB route for the burn in protection as this is my first OLED (as unlikely as it may be).

It's always been June for the US market. European regions may start to see it shipping in May.

 

[Skott]

SixFootDuo If counting pennies and I had the 55" you currently have I'd keep it and just splurge on the 3080Ti when it comes out. The 3080Ti wont be cheap anyhow. Some day you'll need to change out that tv and when you do the 48CX will be old and newer and better will be out. Just a thought anyway. If you have money to burn then ignore what I just said. ;-)

 

[elvn]

This screenshot is from the Denon remote app on my phone while playing music from Tidal. I believe this proves that my eArc is working with uncompressed PMC 192kHz.
View attachment 240819

Have you tried any PCM 7.1, ATMOS or other uncompressed audio movies? What about uncompressed from an xbox or ps4?

Personally I don't care if the built in smart TV apps or connecting a usb HDD with a movie directly to the TV don't support uncompressed audio formats but I do care whether I can pass-though uncompressed HDMI audio from my pc through the tv and out of the e-ARC hdmi port to an eARC capable receiver correcly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...s-general/3072900-lg-c9-earc-info-thread.html

However, early adopters of C9 have discovered the following issues with LGs implementation of the eARC feature;

• The LG implementation ignores the media handles for PCM 5.1 and PCM 7.1 audio, which means it is not possible to pass uncompressed HD audio from devices like game titles on consoles like Xbox/PS4 that send HD audio uncompressed. There is no technical reason this shouldn't work (and does work on competitor televisions from Sony) this is just an omission on LGs part in supporting the formats. This issue was first reported in rtings.com review of LG C9.
• Owners of 2017 Denon products have reported that their AVRs are not recognized by LG C9 as being eARC capable devices. It is reported that 2017 Denons also have this issue with other brand televisions so possibly this issue can only be fixed by Denon or that Denon and display makers will have to collaborate on a fix.
• It has been confirmed that LG C9 operates properly with eARC delivery when HDMI CEC is turned off on the source (TV) and destination (AVR). This is accomplished by removing HDMI configuration for target AVR in the LG C9 Connections Manager (reset configuration) and disabling ARC and TV control in the Denon/Marantz unit.... then enabling ARC and eARC w/passthrough in the C9 HDMI audio settings. It is unknown if this is functional across all AVR brands but strongly indicates that LG has properly implemented the feature so that it can be turned on independent of use of HDMI control (HDMI CEC).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...020-lg-cx-gx-owners-thread-no-price-talk.html

Features that are delivered:

• 5.1/7.1 LPCM passthrough via eARC - this works only via a CRU EDID hack - so not a user-friendly feature

Expected/Announced features to be delivered via firmware updates:

• 5.1/7.1 LPCM passthrough via eARC - the CX HDMI EDID mentions only support for 2.0 LPCM - once CRU is used to add PCM 5.1 to the TV's EDID, you may be able to get surround sound (via eARC) - so it seems that both C9 and CX will get the firmware update in Q2-2020 - as previously announced
• AMD FreeSync compatibility - will be available via a future firmware upgrade at the end of 2020;
• HDCP 2.3 - the CX is still at HDCP 2.2 level - HDCP 2.3 will be available via a future firmware update, probably at the same time with the C9;
• Dolby Vision glows at brightness 50 - LG is aware and is working for a fix;
• DTS/DTS-HD audio is not passed via eARC - LG was notified about this issue, hopefully, they will provide a fix via a future firmware update;
• Full 48Gbps support - as of April 2020 the "12 Gbps on 4 lanes" from the Max Fixed Rate Link EDID is missing (the C9 has it) - if we believe the EDID values, the 2020 models support only 40Gbps links, not full 48Gbps;

Features that will never be delivered via firmware updates:

• WebOS apps support for lossless audio - there will be no WebOS app support for lossless HD audio soundtracks such as TrueHD, TrueHD+Atmos, DTS-HD HR, DTS-HD MA or DTS:X - this is the same situation as for the 2019 models; The Alpha9 SoC has only an ARC capable audio output, so it cannot send lossless audio back to the receiver/soundbar, even if they are eARC capable, firmware updates cannot modify hardware limitations;
• DTS and DTS-HD support for USB and HDMI sources - the internal decoder is missing from the factory (as announced in the documentation) and probably it will never be added to the 2020 generation - what is puzzling is that DTS and DTS-HD is not even permitted to passthrough via ARC/eARC;