LG 48CX

[repoman0]

One thing hardware G-sync still has going for it is that it implements frame rate dependent gamma curves. LCDs have the same low brightness flickering issue with VRR that the LG OLEDs have without hardware gsync. I’ve owned the GK850G and its freesync cousin and the flicker difference was very perceptible. That’s the one complaint I have about the OLED as well but it’s not a big deal compared to the other massive picture quality advantages.

re: motion clarity, blur, smoothness etc: the size of the OLED may exaggerate apparent smoothness differences. You’re sitting pretty close to a giant screen filling your field of view, so frame by frame differences are going to be more noticeable just because each frame jumps by a larger relative angle to your eyes. Adjust for making apparent FOV equal by moving the OLED back and I suspect the OLEG looks just as smooth or smoother than an LCD.

 

[Murzilka]

Yeh lets just say you are comparing a modern gen gaming monitor to a less gaming focused older gen C7 TV, which is kind of a moot point and can't really be used as a measurement of modern gaming OLED performance.

The measurements I posted are for a LG CX which LG worked with nvidia in order to produce. Until you see a CX/C1 in action, especially on hdmi 2.1 120hz VRR, you can't really make a comparison to a modern gaming OLED as being "smearing" compared to a modern gaming monitor at 175fpsHz. It would make no sense considering the pursuit camera pictures and the response time measurements.

You keep glamming on hardware g-sync as a premium in this thread too. It was... years ago compared to basic free-sync display capability hacked into existing monitor hardware/scalers of the time. With free-sync premium but especially with the good hdmi 2.1 VRR g-sync certified hardware in the LG CX/C1, nvidia brand hardware g-sync is not outstanding anymore feature wise other than the fact it can run on displayport for gpus and displays without hdmi 2.1. I always applauded nvidia for forcing variable refresh tech to the market and in a very well implemented fashion though, and I've owned hardware g-sync displays before my LG CX (pg278Q, LG GK850G). It took a long time after g-sync came to market outside of a kit ( ~ 2013) for hdmi 2.1 gpus and screens to hit the scene.

I can make whichever comparisons I find appropriate, also I always specify exactly in what circumstances the OLED smeared more than IPS and hide no facts. It shouldn't take you two pages of conversation to re-understand that the OLED is old and not run in its native resolution.
I hope that the new 42-48 OLEDs are just as fast as the Predator I've seen, because I'm planning to buy the 42" this year, probably the Asus version with DP. But the Predator X38P was so perfect in terms of image crispiness and input lag, as well as form factor, that I am still debating between the 42" OLED and the new Predator X38S. Even knowing I will lose the HDR side of the gaming if I go with the Predator, at least the high bar of HDR performance that I am used to since 2017.

 

[elvn]

I would never sit closer than 60PPD , the pixels would be huge. Even at 60PPD the viewing angle is not optimal either.

Some of the issues with gamma are more apparent at low fps ranges, the farther away you dip/pothole away from 120fpsHz the farther way your curve roller coaster rides from the 120hz gamma point. With a 4k screen it's harder to drive at higher fps and people lean harder on VRR rather than running 100fps average or higher, especially with previous gen gpus.

Near black flashing is probably also from the WOLED array though so idk how much you can adjust for that. They've adjusted it in firmware a few times with dithering I think so they've made some attempts to minimize it.

I can make whichever comparisons I find appropriate, also I always specify exactly in what circumstances the OLED smeared more than IPS and hide no facts. It shouldn't take you two pages of conversation to re-understand that the OLED is old and not run in its native resolution.
I hope that the new 42-48 OLEDs are just as fast as the Predator I've seen, because I'm planning to buy the 42" this year, probably the Asus version with DP. But the Predator X38P was so perfect in terms of image crispiness and input lag, as well as form factor, that I am still debating between the 42" OLED and the new Predator X38S. Even knowing I will lose the HDR side of the gaming if I go with the Predator, at least the high bar of HDR performance that I am used to since 2017.

Yeah it just comes off bad in a modern gaming OLED thread. It seemed to insuinate that modern OLED tech is slower or has more sample and hold than a 175hz gaming LCD in the same neighborhood of frame rates and that's not true. It also seemed to insinuate that hardware g-sync reduces "smearing" or sample and hold blur somehow. I enjoyed looking up the review testing breakdowns of the actual numbers. It gives me a clearer picture of the capabilities of different monitor technologies when something makes me question something or wonder about details. It also tends to get other people to add info to the thread as above to give more details and clarify things more. I do it for myself as much as everyone else.

 

[Murzilka]

Yeah it just comes off bad in a modern gaming OLED thread. It seemed to insuinate that modern OLED tech is slower or has more sample and hold than a 175hz gaming LCD in the same neighborhood of frame rates and that's not true. It also seemed to insinuate that hardware g-sync reduces "smearing" or sample and hold blur somehow. I enjoyed looking up the review testing breakdowns of the actual numbers. It gives me a clearer picture of the capabilities of different monitor technologies when something makes me question something or wonder about details. It also tends to get other people to add info to the thread as above to give more details and clarify things more. I do it for myself as much as everyone else.

Well, the OLED tech in terms of motion blur hasn't changed since 2017 for what I know. The only excuse here can be the non-native resolution and the lack of VRR, that didn't make motion smooth enough compared to IPS.

From the other hand... Judging by the UFO images above - the IPS has less motion blur than the CX OLED. Just like my old OLED. lol. So yeah, IPS is actually better than modern OLEDs in terms of motion blur and input lag. (I should have examined those images you posted earlier)

IPS:

OLED:

If you think that those images above prove that OLED smears less, then you should really think about using glasses.

 

[elvn]

Negligible difference peak fpshz on both 175fpshz screens vs 120fpsHz at the same image sizes/zoom , a soften blur. they'd both look like shit at 60fpsHz (smearing blur)which isn't shown on the 175fpsHz pursuit camera images.

 

[Murzilka]

It is not "negligible" even on those images. In real world gaming that difference is multiplied by at least x5, from what you perceive as negligible, if the modern OLEDs with VRR have the same motion blur performance as my C7. Which they apparently do, judging by that UFO test.

So, to conclude, you don't buy the OLED for ultimate motion smoothness and crispness, you buy the OLED for the incredible (imho - unbeatable) HDR content reproduction, perfect black color and for the good enough motion clearness and pretty low input lag.
For the ultimate image motion performance you want one of the LG' 37,5" panels. I think some of them have even better looking UFO test results than the GL with hardware g-sync displayed in this thread above. And if I am not mistaken, current Samsung VA are even better, although they have troubles with displaying HDR content properly.
/ the subject.

 

[elvn]

Disagree. It's negligible between all three cams at max fpsHz down to a soften blur and those results are only if getting 175fps on the 175Hz screens (and 120fps on the 120hz screen), and that on ~ 4k resolutions.

Mathematically using blurbusters law 180fps on a 180Hz screen would indeed be 1/8th less blur than 120fps on a 120Hz screen -just by nature of the frame rate and Hz increase- so 175fps at 175Hz is a little less than that improvement and that only if ignoring the near instant response time of the oled narrowing that gap.

I'm not arguing that higher frame rates that greatly surpass the fpsHz + response time factor of a 120fpsHz oled won't achieve less blur. That's obvious. Whether you can achieve those rates at very high plus to ultra settings on a 4k screen or without knocking your graphics settings down enough to make the blur difference worth it is another matter. 175fpshz isn't a big enough difference especially with the oled response time factor, and at the demands of 4k resolution 175fps isn't as achievable without knocking your graphics settings down which is an aesthetic trade off between the two.

• 60 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 16.7ms persistence = 16.7 pixels of motion blur
• 120 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 8.3ms persistence = 8.3 pixels of motion blur
• 240 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 4.1ms persistence = 4.1 pixels of motion blur
• 480 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 2.1ms persistence = 2.1 pixels of motion blur
• 1000 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 1ms persistence = 1 pixels of motion blur

But you have to factor in response times in actual use so those number range higher on LCD transitions while oled's transitions are essentially instant.

Assumptions: The exact Blur Busters Law minimum is achieved only if pixel transitions are fully square-wave (0ms GtG) on fully-sharp sources (e.g. VR, computer graphics). Actual MPRT numbers can be higher. Slow GtG pixel response will increase numbers above the Blur Busters Law guaranteed minimum motion blur.

 

[MistaSparkul]

It is not "negligible" even on those images. In real world gaming that difference is multiplied by at least x5, from what you perceive as negligible, if the modern OLEDs with VRR have the same motion blur performance as my C7. Which they apparently do, judging by that UFO test.

So, to conclude, you don't buy the OLED for ultimate motion smoothness and crispness, you buy the OLED for the incredible (imho - unbeatable) HDR content reproduction, perfect black color and for the good enough motion clearness and pretty low input lag.
For the ultimate image motion performance you want one of the LG' 37,5" panels. I think some of them have even better looking UFO test results than the GL with hardware g-sync displayed in this thread above. And if I am not mistaken, current Samsung VA are even better, although they have troubles with displaying HDR content properly.
/ the subject.

If you are this sensitive that going from 120Hz to 160Hz or 175Hz feels like some huge day and night difference then why the hell are you not using one of those 360Hz or at least 240Hz monitors then? That must be absolutely life changing for you.

 

[sharknice]

There was an LTT video where they compared the pixel response 360hz monitor with an OLED in ultra slowmo. Night and day difference. The LCD never even really finishes transitioning before the next frame.

 

[elvn]

Just for kicks I put the pursuit cam pics of both 175hz (at 175fps ) monitors and the 120hz oled at 120fps up against each other, scaled down to the smallest of the three image's sizes for comparison's sake:

And here is that equally scaled version scaled up to 200%:

They are all in a pretty similar range imo and require 175fps and 120fps solid respectively to look like that. Some of the 175fpsHz ones on a particular 175hz monitor are actually worse than the oled even with the oled at 120fpsHz limit. E.g. not even showing the segmentation lines on the ufo's body, like missing a texture completely. There is a little overshoot effect on the right side of the oled within the bubble at the alien's control shaft. You can still see the lever though and the left side of the alien's capsule bubble maintains a more defined black outline on the oled where the 175fpsHz examples haze out that trailing edge. The leftmost 175fpsHz screen is a little tighter overall on things like the line of the mouth and no overshoot on the ears but the white dots are still all a mash of soften blur and the trailing left edge of the ufo is smeared, esp the bubble's edge is lost.

With ZERO g2g or practically instant response time of an oled, at 120fpsHz solid would be 8.3ms per frame and 8.3px of blur
With ZERO g2g ~ instant response time, a 175Hz screen at 175fps solid would be 5.7 ms per frame and 5.7px of blur.
A LCD doesn't have zero g2g/instant response time so it would be more than 5.7ms / 5.7px and would vary between different transitions. That's why they look so close. 175 isn't a big enough difference to distance itself from 120fpsHz solid due to the essentially instant response time of the oled and adding response time factor to the LCD.
If you disregard the response time adding to the lcd's results, the 175fpsHz would be 2.6ms less frame persistence and thus 2.6 less pixels of blur radius (at 175fps).

Based on this guy below, the differences at best aren't much. All a soften blur range and only at those results at 175fps on the 175hz screens which is pretty hard to achieve at 4k rez on demanding games without sacrificing the graphics quality end of the equation. Any time you move the viewport at speed the whole panel will do a soften blur like those above but on detailed objects, textures, and depth-via bump mapping rather than a simple cartoon ufo bitmap.

It looks to me like the 175hz oleds at 175 fps are maybe within a pixel or so +/- of the oled blur wise according to those shots. At lower fps the frame persistence and pixels of blur would increase, so the 175Hz screen running the same game or the same ufo test at 120fps (or at the same ~120fps or less frame rate graph as the oled using VRR on a demanding game) would probably look worse than the oled instead of being the same ball park as above.

 

[kasakka]

Even if you want to split hairs over refresh rates and response times, fast LCD panels are still going to be good enough for most users. Higher refresh rates tend to feel more responsive but I think 120 Hz is good enough for current products, especially considering how hard it's to consistently run at 4K in many games even on top tier GPUs. To me 30 -> 60 fps is massive and 60 -> 120 significant improvement but past that it's increasingly smaller improvements. 240 Hz feels a bit smoother/responsive than 120 Hz but that's about it.

I do wish display makers developed scalers that could run higher refresh rates at lower resolutions. That Zisworks scaler could do 4k@120Hz, 1080p@240Hz, 720p@300Hz, and 540p@480Hz on a LCD TV panel from a TV that just ran at 60 Hz with its original hardware. That kind of upgrade would be awesome for OLEDs.

 

[sharknice]

Even if you want to split hairs over refresh rates and response times, fast LCD panels are still going to be good enough for most users. Higher refresh rates tend to feel more responsive but I think 120 Hz is good enough for current products, especially considering how hard it's to consistently run at 4K in many games even on top tier GPUs. To me 30 -> 60 fps is massive and 60 -> 120 significant improvement but past that it's increasingly smaller improvements. 240 Hz feels a bit smoother/responsive than 120 Hz but that's about it.

I do wish display makers developed scalers that could run higher refresh rates at lower resolutions. That Zisworks scaler could do 4k@120Hz, 1080p@240Hz, 720p@300Hz, and 540p@480Hz on a LCD TV panel from a TV that just ran at 60 Hz with its original hardware. That kind of upgrade would be awesome for OLEDs.

4k120hz is the same bandwidth as 1080p480hz

OLED already has the response time, and they already have the bandwidth for it with HDMI 2.1, which has been a problem in the past. They just need to do the other stuff now.

 

[Monstieur]

Refresh rate increases smoothness independent of pixel response time. I use a G1 OLED as my primary desktop monitor. My 240 Hz TN monitor is way smoother than my G1 when just moving the cursor on the desktop. There is definitely more smearing between frames on the 240 Hz, but there are more frames clearly visible to the eye when objects are fast moving. The difference is even more apparent in FPS games where angular movement causes huge shifts in far away objects.

The moving squares test is a better representation of OLED response time, not the moving camera test. Here he compares multiple monitors to OLED.

 

[elvn]

curved 34" alienware with 175Hz QD blue oled g-sync ultimate

 

[elvn]

Refresh rate increases smoothness independent of pixel response time. I use a G1 OLED as my primary desktop monitor. My 240 Hz TN monitor is way smoother than my G1 when just moving the cursor on the desktop. There is definitely more smearing between frames on the 240 Hz, but there are more frames clearly visible to the eye when objects are fast moving. The difference is even more apparent in FPS games where angular movement causes huge shifts in far away objects.

The moving squares test is a better representation of OLED response time, not the moving camera test. Here he compares multiple monitors to OLED.

Sure.. the Desktop = max frame rate since it's 2d isn't demanding - so max fps vs the max Hz of the screen.
Higher fpsHz = less sample and hold blur so the higher you go from the peak fpsHz of the oled even with it's response time, the bigger the gain.

The linus vid on the CX showed exactly what you are talking about more frames wise, using testufo as a ribbon of frames that he took with 3000fps camera at timestamp 6:16 comparing the Lg CX 120hz at 120fps vs a 360fpsHz ips gaming monitor.




In practice, 4k on demanding games at very high plus to ultra settings won't be hitting 240fps without some major graphics settings/aesthetics compromises if it achieves 240fps at all, (let alone if you use RTX/raytracing to tank the frame rate more for some reason), even with quality dlss.

 

[Murzilka]

If you are this sensitive that going from 120Hz to 160Hz or 175Hz feels like some huge day and night difference then why the hell are you not using one of those 360Hz or at least 240Hz monitors then? That must be absolutely life changing for you.

Calm your tits. There is none in 38" or even 42" format with acceptable resolution and color reproduction. Or I would be running one already just like half of the forum and you'd be spending half your day in teh dedicated thread, ya?

The moving squares test is a better representation of OLED response time, not the moving camera test. Here he compares multiple monitors to OLED.

I suppose those are just benchmarks that show the potential of the OLED. Real world gaming is a different story, where OLED is subpar compared to modern IPS and VA panels. At least until it is 120hz limited.

 

[elvn]

The oled results in the tftcentral test look much tighter than the 120fpsHz examples on LCD below here. For LCD, overdrive implementations and response times vary though. I think the predator's overdrive at 175fpsHz in the three column view I posted earlier is very good compared to the LG 175fpsHz screen in the column next to it.

Again, the OLED 120fpsHz pursuit cam images from the CX tftcentral review are tighter than the 120fpsHz example shown below. The CX oled pursuit camera pictures look a lot more solid and contained within the shadow mask of the ufo object where the example below looks a bit more like a shuddering image. The 60fpsHz example is horrible.

If you are this sensitive that going from 120Hz to 160Hz or 175Hz feels like some huge day and night difference then why the hell are you not using one of those 360Hz or at least 240Hz monitors then? That must be absolutely life changing for you.

I agree with MistaSparkul - the 240Hz -at 240 FPS- examples below at 4px of blur are where it really starts to get more appreciable and tighter motion clarity / blur reduction, but again we are comparing to 4k rez HDR screens often with demanding games at very high plus to ultra settings. GPUS are not going to be able to hit those kind of rates even now with 3000 series gpus on a lot of games. We need some kind of frame duplication tech in the future, especially as graphics ceiling increase and we get 8k resolutions eventually. Also in regard to using ray tracing. Quality DLSS isn't going to cover the gap enough.

Calm your tits. There is none in 38" or even 42" format with acceptable resolution and color reproduction. Or I would be running one already just like half of the forum and you'd be spending half your day in teh dedicated thread, ya?

If you check out the linus video I linked about samsung monitors a few back, he mentions that he got to use a samsung 34" curved quantum dot filtered blue (higher output at lower energy) OLED at 175fpsHz so you could potentially get what you are looking for in 175fpsHz capability + all of the oled gaming features sometime in the future, even if you have to sit closer to get the same PPD and screen size in effect perceptually perspective-wise that a larger 4k screen would have.

Posting it here at the timestamp where he mentions it:

 

[Murzilka]

If you check out the linus video I linked about samsung monitors a few back, he mentions that he got to use a samsung 34" curved quantum dot blue (higher output at lower energy) OLED at 175fpsHz so you could potentially get what you are looking for in 175fpsHz capability + all of the oled gaming features sometime in the future.

The curved 34" doesn't appeal to me really, thanks.

 

[elvn]

Wow.... that's a shock. I'm not a fan of the smaller size ~ 13" tall screens in general but damn, spec wise if you just sat closer for the size perspective it would do everything OLED and 25% brigthter HDR, less burn in chance most likely, and at the 175fpsHz peak you liked but at oled response time... and even with g-sync ultimate. I guess maybe you don't like the curve.. understandable if so. He did also mention that their QD blue OLED tv's would be capable of 144fpsHz 4k VRR.

 

[Murzilka]

Wow.... that's a shock.

lol. Also the price will be insane.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Calm your tits. There is none in 38" or even 42" format with acceptable resolution and color reproduction. Or I would be running one already just like half of the forum and you'd be spending half your day in teh dedicated thread, ya?

I suppose those are just benchmarks that show the potential of the OLED. Real world gaming is a different story, where OLED is subpar compared to modern IPS and VA panels. At least until it is 120hz limited.

Ooo what do you know, turns out there's more important things than just straight up refresh rate after all eh? Hence why we are all fine with current OLED's 120Hz limitation. The image quality is hard to beat. And it certainly won't be beat by some edge lit HDR400 nit ultrawide.

 

[slackerjack]

Looking at getting a 48CX for gaming. This thread has a lot of good info. Anyone finding the screen to be too large? Mine will be close to 24” back from where I’m sitting.

 

[Dan_D]

Looking at getting a 48CX for gaming. This thread has a lot of good info. Anyone finding the screen to be too large? Mine will be close to 24” back from where I’m sitting.

For gaming I think a 48" monitor is perfectly fine. Even ideal at those distances. However, not everyone would necessarily agree with that. There are some people who think anything beyond a 27" is too much.

 

[kasakka]

Looking at getting a 48CX for gaming. This thread has a lot of good info. Anyone finding the screen to be too large? Mine will be close to 24” back from where I’m sitting.

That's nowhere even close to enough viewing distance. You want at minimum about 31.5" and preferably something like 39" or even more. Otherwise it will feel uncomfortably massive.

 

[Murzilka]

Ooo what do you know, turns out there's more important things than just straight up refresh rate after all eh? Hence why we are all fine with current OLED's 120Hz limitation. The image quality is hard to beat. And it certainly won't be beat by some edge lit HDR400 nit ultrawide.

I never said it was all about maximum image smoothness. I merely mentioned the fact that IPS still has less motion blur. As well as the VA.

 

[elvn]

I never said it was all about maximum image smoothness. I merely mentioned the fact that IPS still has less motion blur. As well as the VA.

Higher Hz screens that approach their peak HZ in the frame rate of the game do. 240Hz at 220fps+ , 360fps at 220fps - 330fps+, etc. 175fpsHz is marginal and even that is when at 175fps.

At the same FPS ranges.. where the top 2/3 of their range is hovering near 120fpsHz on demanding games (at 4k resolution), or more commonly less frame rate range averages due to how demanding 4k is and how high graphics settings ceilings can go when set to very high plus to ultra settings, all of the screens would be nearly the same sample-and-hold blur except that the OLED would probably look slightly tighter due to the response time.

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

• 60 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 16.7ms persistence = 16.7 pixels of motion blur
• 120 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 8.3ms persistence = 8.3 pixels of motion blur
• 240 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 4.1ms persistence = 4.1 pixels of motion blur
• 480 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 2.1ms persistence = 2.1 pixels of motion blur
• 1000 fps at 1000 pixels/sec = 1ms persistence = 1 pixels of motion blur

But you have to factor in response times in actual use so those number range higher on LCD transitions while oled's transitions are essentially instant.

Assumptions: The exact Blur Busters Law minimum is achieved only if pixel transitions are fully square-wave (0ms GtG) on fully-sharp sources (e.g. VR, computer graphics). Actual MPRT numbers can be higher. Slow GtG pixel response will increase numbers above the Blur Busters Law guaranteed minimum motion blur.

 

[Murzilka]

Higher Hz screens that approach their peak HZ in the frame rate of the game do. 240Hz at 220fps+ , 360fps at 220fps - 330fps+, etc. 175fpsHz is marginal and even that is when at 175fps.

No, we started with me saying that my experience shows the IPS and VA smear less. Doesn't matter the if you max out your fps. And it's not marginal but VERY noticeable.

 

[MistaSparkul]

No, we started with me saying that my experience shows the IPS and VA smear less. Doesn't matter the if you max out your fps. And it's not marginal but VERY noticeable.

What? So are you saying an IPS or VA running at the same frame rate and refresh rate as an OLED will have less smearing? I don't see how that is even possible. And I seriously doubt the gsync module is the magic "smear be gone" device.

 

[elvn]

What? So are you saying an IPS or VA running at the same frame rate and refresh rate as an OLED will have less smearing? I don't see how that is even possible. And I seriously doubt the gsync module is the magic "smear be gone" device.

Agreed. Without supplying higher frame rates to reach nearing the peak HZ of higher and higher hz displays, the higher Hz is pretty meaningless in regard to sample-and-hold blur, especially using VRR no less.

No, we started with me saying that my experience shows the IPS and VA smear less. Doesn't matter the if you max out your fps. And it's not marginal but VERY noticeable.

The motion clarity is increased the higher the matched or near to matched frame rate range to peak HZ on higher hz screens. That's why the blurbusters graphic shows them all on a 1000hz screen for reference, to show that the frame rate is the limiting factor when you have higher Hz.

*at zero GtG response time that is, so variable response times on LCDs can add to those # of pixels slightly though the better gaming overdrive implementations reduce that factor.


..the motion clarity is increased a lot more in neighborhood of 240fps on a 240Hz screen,
..(240fps to) ~300fps average+ nearing 360fps on a 360Hz screen, etc.
..what I said was 175Hz at 175fps is marginal increase (and only when at 175fps ish ranges in a game) by comparison to those (240fpsHz, 360fpsHz) and that 175fps on a 175Hz screen is marginal clarity increase vs 120hz at 120fps with oled response time factored in.
..240Hz at ~240ish fps zone touching averages and 360Hz at 240 to 360ish fps graph averages is VERY noticeable.


..a 480hz monitor running 240fps will look the same motion clarity-wise vs sample and hold blur as a 240hz monitor running 240fps if all other factors and specs scaled equally (fast enough response times, good enough overdrive implementations with the same results at both ranges, etc).

 

[Murzilka]

What? So are you saying an IPS or VA running at the same frame rate and refresh rate as an OLED will have less smearing? I don't see how that is even possible. And I seriously doubt the gsync module is the magic "smear be gone" device.

I was not saying that.

The motion clarity is increased the higher the matched or near to matched frame rate range to peak HZ on higher hz screens. That's why the blurbusters graphic shows them all on a 1000hz screen for reference, to show that the frame rate is the limiting factor when you have higher Hz.

Probably the reason why 37.5" IPS 160hz is so much smoother than OLED 120hz, plus hardware gsync.

 

[elvn]

What? So are you saying an IPS or VA running at the same frame rate and refresh rate as an OLED will have less smearing? I don't see how that is even possible. And I seriously doubt the gsync module is the magic "smear be gone" device.

..

I was not saying that.

Probably the reason why 37.5" IPS 160hz is so much smoother than OLED 120hz, plus hardware gsync.

175hz **AT** 175FPS is marginally less sample and hold blur and a little more motion defintion than 120fpsHz OLED ---> when the bulk of the frame rate average's graph is at or approaches that peak frame rate of 175.FPS.HZ.

175Hz AT 175 fps at ZERO gtg is 5.7ms persistence of the frame so is 5.7pixels of blur 5.7px.
120Hz AT 120 fps at ZERO gtg is 8.3ms persistence of the frame so is 8.3 pixels of blur. OLED response time is essentially instantaneous so there is no added response time factor here.
175Hz AT 120 fps at ZERO gtg is 8.3ms persistence of the frame so is 8.3 pixels of blur plus the relationship of the overdrive compared to the gtg and outside of gtg response times of the LCD, so in practice slightly more than that.

Between the two (175Hz when AT 175fps on LCD and 120hz when AT 120fps on OLED), that's probably around ~ 1.5px difference in blur, which is marginal and keeps both in a similar soften blur range.
240HZ AT 240 fps at zero gtg is only 4.1px of blur (+ LCD overdrive and response time factors) which is more appreciable at around half the blur (plus LCD response time/overdrive factors) of 120Hz at 120fps.


175HZ at lower than 175 fps
--------------------------------------------
e.g. a 120fps or less frame rate graph:

..175hz 4k at 120fps or so average (or less) and a 4k 120hz OLED at 120fps average or so (or less) with VRR/g-sync will be at the same motion clairty and motion definition. The oled might even look better due to the response time (perhaps considerably better depending on the quality or lack thereof of different LCD model's overdrive and the nature of LCD's gtg and outside of gtg transition response times)

...175hz at 120fps solid or so compared to a 120Hz at 120fps solid or so would also look similar outside of response times, overdrive, etc.


============================================

You could have a 1000HZ screen and it won't look appreciably better than a 4k 120hz OLED screen if both are running a demanding game with frame rate graphs that aren't hitting 120fps or going much over it.
.
Notice that the chart is referencing the FPS the source is capable of showing you or the fps the game is running at - not the peak HZ.
You can figure it out that you won't actually see those fps unless the game is running at those rates and the monitor is capable of enough Hz to match or exceed the FPS, so they use a 1000Hz and zero g2g reference point.

e.g. increasing the depth of the pool (Hz) doesn't mean anything unless you are filling it it with more water/at a higher flow rate (frames/sec) - and only when you are as this pool has a giant drain draining it as fast as you fill it

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I was not saying that.

Probably the reason why 37.5" IPS 160hz is so much smoother than OLED 120hz, plus hardware gsync.

I cannot tell a difference in motion clarity between my Acer XB271HU @ 165hz (high end gaming IPS) vs my C1 @ 120hz. obviously the motion is slightly smoother because of the 45 extra hertz but I can't perceive any difference in the actual pixel response (ghosting, whatever you want to call it.) with the Acer also set to 120hz i really can't differentiate response times by eye between the two of them. there is no way anyone could say one was clearly smoother than the other at the same refresh rate.

also the input lag feels exactly the same, and i'm one who is extremely sensitive to it (i can literally tell when there is even one added frame of latency.)

 

[elvn]

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for that.

obviously the motion is slightly smoother because of the 45 extra hertz

Slight clarification on that part though - it is only on games or periods when you are running an 'extra' 45 FPS higher than 120fpsHz along with the increased peak hz capability of 165Hz. That's why I keep using fpsHz instead of Hz. With lower frame rate graphs near or below 120fps there won't be any difference in motion clarity(blur reduction) or motion definition/smoothness. I know that is what you meant though when you said extra 45Hz --> the extra 45fps shown on games that can go that high, nearing or surpassing 165FPS at 165Hz in the bulk of their frame rate graph.

That's why the blurbuster's graphic is at 1000hz reference point. The fps capable of being shown to your eyeballs can be limited by the source (e.g. a console game's limit or console port game's or an "under-powered" gpu vs resolution e.g. 4k and game settings near or at graphics ceilings demands) or the peak Hz of the screen itself. It doesn't matter much if you have a 1000Hz screen if you aren't running near 1000 FPS frame rate graphs.

 

[mirkendargen]

Anyone know what's been in the last 4ish updates other than 4k/120hz Dolby Vision on XSX? I just got another update today 4.30.55 and have no idea what's different.

 

[Perscitus]

Release notes a few pages back and/or via Korean mothership website translation. Nothing to write home about sadly.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

my c1 really made me start thinking about entering the fray of finding a 30 series gpu... i was totally satisfied with my 2080 ti before but the 4k 120hz 10 bit now dangling in front of me is impossible to resist. ugh

at least my 2080 still has value in this insane market i guess

 

[Perscitus]

The DP1.4 to HDMI 2.1a adapters have come a long way from where they were a year plus ago.

I recently picked up the alternative to Club3D (which I used and returned a year or more ago)
and my aging RTX2060S now perfectly outputs 4K RGB VESA at 10/12bit and 120Hz with 10bit Temporal Dithering enabled.

Sadly it does nothing for banding, in fact making it worse for sub 1080p video material and many games which dont offer film grain/dithering booleans.

RTX4xx/5xx will be the next time I look at GPUs.
Perhaps by then it will be time to change MOBO to switch to some new GPU interface and CPU socket tech too.

 

[res]

Also have RTX2080 with C1. Use the USB-C adapter for HDMI 2.1. It does 4k 120Hz and 10bit. Only VRR doesn't work.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Also have RTX2080 with C1. Use the USB-C adapter for HDMI 2.1. It does 4k 120Hz and 10bit. Only VRR doesn't work.

VRR is a must for me.

 

[NukeDukem]

at least my 2080 still has value in this insane market i guess

The resale of my 2080 Ti paid for 73% of my 3090, before state tax. Insane market indeed. I do admit I was lucky as hell to snatch a 3090 at MSRP from Best Buy. I hesitated at the time, but who could predict pulling the trigger on a $1500 GPU would be a good financial decision? What an upside down world.