tongshadow
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2023
- Messages
- 220
240hz still not there yet huh...
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
LG 48CX
- Thread starter gan7114
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
Nope but I can live with 165Hz which is still a decent improvement over 120Hz. The most demanding path tracing games probably won't hit more than 165fps on a 5090 anyway, and if they do then I have my PG32UCDP for that. I'm mostly upgrading for image quality because while the CX was great back in 2020, it just leaves too much to be desired in that regard today.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2023
- Messages
- 152
What are the benefits of a 2025 OLED TV compared to a 2020(-ish) model, what are reasons for upgrade? I'm only wondering, my only OLED panel is on my phone. I aknowledge the upcoming panels have not been reviewed yet, but I'm curious about the progress in general.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
When it comes to the panel itself, refresh rate has been upgraded from 120Hz up to 144Hz/165Hz which is not really worth it in that regard to upgrade if you ask me. The biggest improvement is the image quality. Back in 2020 the best OLED you could buy was the LG GX but there was no reason to as the CX had the exact same HDR performance with a peak brightness of around 750 nits which was totally fine, great even, by 2020 standards. But OLEDs have come a long way since especially since QD-OLED brought in serious competition so now we have TVs that have peak brightness figures double of what they were in 2020 along with higher color volume. HDTVTest estimates that the 2025 flagships will hit peak brightness figures close to 2000 nits which is a massive upgrade over 2020's 750 nits. The 48 inch G5 however will not get close to 2000 nits though since it lacks the brightness booster ultimate that is found in the larger sizes, but given that it will be sold as a G series model, I am expecting a pretty sizeable upgrade in image quality over the 48 inch C5, ESPECIALLY if both are going to be 144Hz only so LG has to really separate the two by having the G series have much higher peak brightness and color volume.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,937
Cool.
It should be an appreciable upgrade compared to the 48CX overall.
He did however say that the "3 times brighter" ~ "brightness booster ultimate" tech doesn't include the 48 inch model (or the 97 inch model) G5 though.
He also seemed to indicate and showed a a publication showing that the 165Hz VRR is only starting on the 55" (and not the 48" or 97").
It should be an appreciable upgrade compared to the 48CX overall.
He did however say that the "3 times brighter" ~ "brightness booster ultimate" tech doesn't include the 48 inch model (or the 97 inch model) G5 though.
He also seemed to indicate and showed a a publication showing that the 165Hz VRR is only starting on the 55" (and not the 48" or 97").
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
Correct. But to me whether it's 144Hz or 165Hz it doesn't matter because even if it was 165Hz, it's still not 240Hz in the end but at least it's better than 120Hz. With regards to lacking the brightness booster ultimate, while that definitely means the 48 inch won't be hitting the same brightness levels as the 55-77 inch models, it will still be substantially brighter than the 48 C5 because both will be 144Hz panels so the only thing to separate the two is HDR brightness unless you count the different processor but I highly doubt people are going to step up from a C5 to G5 if that's the only difference between the two while everything else is the same like refresh rate and brightness. My prediction is that the 55-77 G5 will hit HDR peak brightness figures close to 2000 nits, while the 48 inch G5 will be 1400-1500 nits, and the 48 inch C5 will be around the 1000 nits mark because LG doesn't care to improve the C series. Honestly if the 48 G5 cannot do at LEAST 1300 nits then I will not be bothering because to me a brightness figure lower than 1300 nits isn't worthy of it being sold as a G series OLED. The G series is the flagship and so it better have flagship numbers and if the 55-77 is doing close to 2000 nits then the 48 just can't drop that to below 1300 while expecting to be sold under the same umbrella.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,937
Pros and cons as always will depend on your priorities.
As you might recall, I already view a 48cx from 36" to 48" away, decoupled from my desk on it's own mount. Considering, someone like me or someone with a similar setup could probably swing upping to a 55 inch screen vs 48 inch.
. . ~ 60 deg viewing angle on a 48 inch screen at around 36" view distance screen surface to eyeballs
. . ~ 60 deg viewing angle on a 55 inch screen at around 42" view distance screen surface to eyeballs
So as a baseline view distance, 36 inches vs 42 inches , adding another 6 inch of gap, with some wiggle-room. If my eyeballs were right at the near edge of a 24" deep desk, that would mean setting a 48inch screen back only 12" from the far end of the desk depth. A 55 inch screen would increase that gap to 18" away from the far end of the desk depth to get the same viewing angle. If your desk and chair are on caster wheels, you can roll them right up to the screen when not in use, as a space saver, so if you have the space ( ~ 6' area) and it's not a high traffic area during pc use, I feel adding another 6" to what is already around a 12" gap behind a desk (rolling a desk away from the screen(s) in my case), doable. I had even been considering a 65" 8k samsung 900D gaming tv at one point as that is the smallest model they make.
. . . . . . . .
I've been following along in a few threads on screens I have some interest in, but a screen upgrade would be after my main rig upgrade 1200 dollar-ish since I have some applicable parts already, and likely a 5000 series later, perhaps 5090, when price/availability vs rush and scalping is normalized and I'm set up properly for it overall. Without finding a suitable screen upgrade to my tastes in 2024, the timeline for the 5000 series release has put the screen upgrade on the back burner for now in my case essentially.
I'm hoping my next screen will be 240hz. I think doubling the Hz is a good jump, halving the sample and hold blur again vs 120fpsHz, and doubling the motion articulation increase again compared to 120fpsHz, ( 4x vs 60fpsHz solid ). That at least when running high enough frame rates on certain games/settings.
I was looking at the 900D 8k which can do 240Hz 4k upscaled, but apparently it's response time is very poor among other things. I also tend to use certain window layouts that remain fairly static anyway, so I've come to the conclusion that using multiple large screens isn't that bad of a tradeoff vs a single 8k worth of desktop/app real-estate after all, as neat as 8k might have been. Additionally considering that the 8k isn't curved (like a 1000R 4k ark is), and that instead, with multiple screens I can angle the side screens so that their pixels are on axis to me.
I am following along about the LG 45" 5120x2160 800R 240Hz OLED gaming screen, which has some interesting specs - but I think it has abraded outer layer matte/ag which I really dislike on screens. Currently typing on an abraded screen laptop, which I deal with but don't prefer clarity wise with a lush, glossy 10.5" samsung tablet next to it. When possible I plug this laptop into a glossy external screen.
The G5's seem interesting, for me at 55" for the full features, but I'd really rather hold out for 240Hz on some OLED model at this point - preferably glossy or nearly so which may steer me back to gaming tv oleds in the end. Will see.
500Hz or even 1000Hz would be nice in the future some year, but I have no interest in 1080p (or even 1440p) resolution at this point. I think frame gen would have to advance a lot for 4k or greater resolutions for very high Hz screens, to where frame gen would insert multiple frames between each "real" frame accurately. A system where a game engine's moving entities and forces, and your peripheral manipulation + OS drivers/systems, could all broadcast their vectors to a more advanced frame gen tech, informing actual vectors to the tech of all of the vectors in play, instead of solely guessing vectors, where now frame gen is looking at two frames by buffering a frame and comparing the two to guess vectors (which isn't nearly as accurate on it's own).
For example, If I could hit 120fps at 4k or more with "very high+" settings ( to more and more modern ultra settings across years), and have frame gen multiply that by x5 adding 4 frames to reach 600 fpsHz accurately with some more advanced overall game dev, peripheral driver and os dev, + gpu dev frame gen system using informed vectors some-year, that would really be something. 200fpsHz on some future gpu x5 (generating +4 frames) could get 1000fpsHz.
As you might recall, I already view a 48cx from 36" to 48" away, decoupled from my desk on it's own mount. Considering, someone like me or someone with a similar setup could probably swing upping to a 55 inch screen vs 48 inch.
. . ~ 60 deg viewing angle on a 48 inch screen at around 36" view distance screen surface to eyeballs
. . ~ 60 deg viewing angle on a 55 inch screen at around 42" view distance screen surface to eyeballs
So as a baseline view distance, 36 inches vs 42 inches , adding another 6 inch of gap, with some wiggle-room. If my eyeballs were right at the near edge of a 24" deep desk, that would mean setting a 48inch screen back only 12" from the far end of the desk depth. A 55 inch screen would increase that gap to 18" away from the far end of the desk depth to get the same viewing angle. If your desk and chair are on caster wheels, you can roll them right up to the screen when not in use, as a space saver, so if you have the space ( ~ 6' area) and it's not a high traffic area during pc use, I feel adding another 6" to what is already around a 12" gap behind a desk (rolling a desk away from the screen(s) in my case), doable. I had even been considering a 65" 8k samsung 900D gaming tv at one point as that is the smallest model they make.
. . . . . . . .
I've been following along in a few threads on screens I have some interest in, but a screen upgrade would be after my main rig upgrade 1200 dollar-ish since I have some applicable parts already, and likely a 5000 series later, perhaps 5090, when price/availability vs rush and scalping is normalized and I'm set up properly for it overall. Without finding a suitable screen upgrade to my tastes in 2024, the timeline for the 5000 series release has put the screen upgrade on the back burner for now in my case essentially.
I'm hoping my next screen will be 240hz. I think doubling the Hz is a good jump, halving the sample and hold blur again vs 120fpsHz, and doubling the motion articulation increase again compared to 120fpsHz, ( 4x vs 60fpsHz solid ). That at least when running high enough frame rates on certain games/settings.
I was looking at the 900D 8k which can do 240Hz 4k upscaled, but apparently it's response time is very poor among other things. I also tend to use certain window layouts that remain fairly static anyway, so I've come to the conclusion that using multiple large screens isn't that bad of a tradeoff vs a single 8k worth of desktop/app real-estate after all, as neat as 8k might have been. Additionally considering that the 8k isn't curved (like a 1000R 4k ark is), and that instead, with multiple screens I can angle the side screens so that their pixels are on axis to me.
I am following along about the LG 45" 5120x2160 800R 240Hz OLED gaming screen, which has some interesting specs - but I think it has abraded outer layer matte/ag which I really dislike on screens. Currently typing on an abraded screen laptop, which I deal with but don't prefer clarity wise with a lush, glossy 10.5" samsung tablet next to it. When possible I plug this laptop into a glossy external screen.
The G5's seem interesting, for me at 55" for the full features, but I'd really rather hold out for 240Hz on some OLED model at this point - preferably glossy or nearly so which may steer me back to gaming tv oleds in the end. Will see.
500Hz or even 1000Hz would be nice in the future some year, but I have no interest in 1080p (or even 1440p) resolution at this point. I think frame gen would have to advance a lot for 4k or greater resolutions for very high Hz screens, to where frame gen would insert multiple frames between each "real" frame accurately. A system where a game engine's moving entities and forces, and your peripheral manipulation + OS drivers/systems, could all broadcast their vectors to a more advanced frame gen tech, informing actual vectors to the tech of all of the vectors in play, instead of solely guessing vectors, where now frame gen is looking at two frames by buffering a frame and comparing the two to guess vectors (which isn't nearly as accurate on it's own).
For example, If I could hit 120fps at 4k or more with "very high+" settings ( to more and more modern ultra settings across years), and have frame gen multiply that by x5 adding 4 frames to reach 600 fpsHz accurately with some more advanced overall game dev, peripheral driver and os dev, + gpu dev frame gen system using informed vectors some-year, that would really be something. 200fpsHz on some future gpu x5 (generating +4 frames) could get 1000fpsHz.
Last edited:
sharknice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
It's exciting to see they're bringing 165hz to TVs. Hopefully they keep increasing it.
Since it's not coming to the 48" yet I'm not tempted at all to upgrade. Maybe they'll add those improvements to the 48" next year. I'm not sure that will be enough for me to upgrade though, if they increase it to 240hz I probably would. Simultaneous VRR BFI is what I really want
Since it's not coming to the 48" yet I'm not tempted at all to upgrade. Maybe they'll add those improvements to the 48" next year. I'm not sure that will be enough for me to upgrade though, if they increase it to 240hz I probably would. Simultaneous VRR BFI is what I really want
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,937
Since I had mentioned similar in my last reply -
From the latest nvidia press releases about DLSS 4. Still not using a game engine and peripheral drivers that inform the system of actual vectors, but they claim that it is so much better than previously that frame gen will be able to produce multiple frames
"allows to" ... "generate up to three additional frames"
. . . . .
That means something like 120fpsHz average at 4k could get 480fpsHz average, but they are probably aiming to up the frame rates so people use raytracing more.
A 5080 or 5090 would do better and with dlss4 and framegen upgrades, but here is a 4090 with RT ultra and DLSS qulaity getting 79 fps in cyberpunk. Idk if that means it's using frame gen +1 frame, which would be based on something like 40fps if so. Personally, my gut feeling is that 100fps (after DLSS upscaling) would be a more optimal foundation of "native" motion articulation for frame gen to work from, delivering 200fpsHz, 300fpsHz or 400fpsHz (average) with the +1 to +3 frames added, for higher Hz screens, but they are going to market it amplify much lower fps use I'm sure. Both DLSS and Frame Gen work better the higher the base frame rate and the higher the resolution they are operating on, because there is less difference between action states at higher fps, and the pixels are much smaller vs artifacts at higher resolutions.
100fps average graph in games can span something like this, with some games tighter than others:
(70)85fpsHz <<<<< 100fpsHz >>>>> 115fpsHz (130fpsHz)
so with framegen +2 it would triple that, +3 would quadruple it.
There is a drop down in the nvidia panels where you will be able to manually set it between +1, +2 and +3, I'm guessing you can use lower if the higher multiples don't operate as cleanly for some reason. (An informed vector system would still operate more cleanly and accurately).
From the latest nvidia press releases about DLSS 4. Still not using a game engine and peripheral drivers that inform the system of actual vectors, but they claim that it is so much better than previously that frame gen will be able to produce multiple frames
"allows to" ... "generate up to three additional frames"
. . . . .
That means something like 120fpsHz average at 4k could get 480fpsHz average, but they are probably aiming to up the frame rates so people use raytracing more.
A 5080 or 5090 would do better and with dlss4 and framegen upgrades, but here is a 4090 with RT ultra and DLSS qulaity getting 79 fps in cyberpunk. Idk if that means it's using frame gen +1 frame, which would be based on something like 40fps if so. Personally, my gut feeling is that 100fps (after DLSS upscaling) would be a more optimal foundation of "native" motion articulation for frame gen to work from, delivering 200fpsHz, 300fpsHz or 400fpsHz (average) with the +1 to +3 frames added, for higher Hz screens, but they are going to market it amplify much lower fps use I'm sure. Both DLSS and Frame Gen work better the higher the base frame rate and the higher the resolution they are operating on, because there is less difference between action states at higher fps, and the pixels are much smaller vs artifacts at higher resolutions.
100fps average graph in games can span something like this, with some games tighter than others:
(70)85fpsHz <<<<< 100fpsHz >>>>> 115fpsHz (130fpsHz)
so with framegen +2 it would triple that, +3 would quadruple it.
There is a drop down in the nvidia panels where you will be able to manually set it between +1, +2 and +3, I'm guessing you can use lower if the higher multiples don't operate as cleanly for some reason. (An informed vector system would still operate more cleanly and accurately).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
I have a 240Hz OLED and love it, yes I would like for the TV's to start adopting 240Hz. But that will not happen for who knows how many more years and I'm just not willing to stick it out with the CX for any longer as long as the G5 can do 1300 nits minimum with a big boost to color volume. For as much as I am a frame chaser, I'm also an image quality chaser and the CX by 2025 standards just ain't it anymore. The talk only seems to be about refresh rate these days and not image quality. We all want faster OLEDs but do none of us care for better looking OLEDs?
sharknice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
Yeah I want more color volume and brighter highlights, but that isn't as applicable as refresh rate and resolution in most cases.
Higher resolution and refresh rate are always better. But more color volume and brighter hilghlights are only applicable when it's actually happening in the content.
And for gaming even when it does it's not as big of a difference as going from something like 120hz to 240hz, or 1080p or 1440p to 4k.
I'm personally not willing to go back to anything lower than 4k resolution so none of the monitors interest me. I also like the 48" 16:9 size.
I'm sure some newer OLEDs look a bit better but I don't care enough about the eye searing highlights. In my use case, the CX handles 99% of the brightness spectrum in real content just fine. (and the same goes with colour volume)
I got used to 48" as well haha, but I'm still looking at the OLED monitors because of the refresh rate.
I got used to 48" as well haha, but I'm still looking at the OLED monitors because of the refresh rate.
Last edited:
Im thinking more along the lines of 4k, with dlss4 and a little frame gen locking fps to 120 with as much quality as possible then applying something like the blurbusters rolling scan shader tech at 480hz. With a 500hz OLED it is theoretically possible. Best of all worlds?
https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/
https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
That's true. I guess for me it is quite applicable as refresh rate is since almost all content I consume has HDR in it whether it's Dolby Vision from a Netflix or Amazon Prime show, or HDR in games. Even games that lack native HDR support I can turn to RTX HDR which is pretty good itself and beats out the games with horrible implementations of native HDR.
phinix
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 914
Everyone wants more Hz. I dont understand why - 120Hz, 240Hz - there is no GPU which would achieve 120fps in 4K games, not even looking at 240fps.
Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
DLSS and frame gen make that doable in many games, and the new MFG with 50xx cards even more so, I could play Marvel Rivals at 480hz+480fps with a 5090 for example. The 4090 can do 240ish fps without frame gen but with many dips.
That's one of the most popular 2024 games so, yeah
That's one of the most popular 2024 games so, yeah
Last edited:
phinix
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 914
Marvel stuff, who plays those - thats games for kids.DLSS and frame gen make that doable in many games, and the new MFG with 50xx cards even more so, I could play Marvel Rivals at 480hz+480fps with a 5090 for example. The 4090 can do 240ish fps without frame gen but with many dips.
That's one of the most popular 2024 games so, yeah
Millions and millions and millions of people because it has fantastic and skill-based gameplay well suited for competitive AND casual gamers alike with solid matchmaking and a great variety of different characters suited to all playstyles and individual skill sets.
Aka it's a great video game, focused on gameplay and user experience before anything else. And well polished on day one.
I don't care if it's Marvel or anything else, it's just a great pvp game that I can play with friends at any time of the day or night. And none of them are "kids".
Hard to give a better example but you can also play Indiana Jones or CP77 at 4k 240fps with path tracing on a 5090. Better?
Aka it's a great video game, focused on gameplay and user experience before anything else. And well polished on day one.
I don't care if it's Marvel or anything else, it's just a great pvp game that I can play with friends at any time of the day or night. And none of them are "kids".
Hard to give a better example but you can also play Indiana Jones or CP77 at 4k 240fps with path tracing on a 5090. Better?
phinix
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 914
No, still doesn't convince me the need for 240Hz. 5090 is/will be so niche, that not many people will buy, too expensive. With your example, I can't imagine people paying for high spec OLED TVs, 5090 cards to play some silly pvp shooter. Your millions and millions mostly play it at 1080p, maybe 1% of those would use OLED and high end cards like 5090.
I have mini-LEDs (MBP 16", Samsung G95NC) and a Samsung Galaxy Tab S9+ OLED tablet, all capable of higher brightness than the LG CX 48". It just doesn't matter that much to me, not enough to pay what the G5 series costs, or even G4 at its discounted price of 1699 €.
So I'm hoping to see a more significant overall upgrade before I let the venerable CX go to pasture. 120 -> 165 Hz is not that relevant, 120 -> 240 Hz would get me interested when combined with higher HDR brightness.
I'm not happy that this year seems to be mostly about pushing bullshit AI stuff into TVs from all brands, rather than any relevant upgrades.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
240Hz is absolutely worth it! Just know it's also not guaranteed to happen, or at least it may not happen for a very long time. I don't own any OLEDs in between 120Hz and 240Hz so I actually cannot comment if something like 165Hz is good enough but what I can say for sure is that 120Hz is definitely not good enough and sticking with it for potentially 3+ more years is not something I would be able to do so I give you props if you hold out that long lol.
Yeah I doubt my CX will last me 3+ years, and I'll most likely have to move within that period which means it would be easier to sell the TV and buy a new one.
I consider TVs fairly long term purchases and don't have an immediate need to swap as the CX is still good enough for me in every way and a fine pairing with the 4090.
Though one YouTuber seemed to tease OLED Motion Pro returning, I think it was inadvertent. Some old video he had happened to use I guess.
The CX and C1 already have great pictures. I think for monitor usage I would not be interested in an even greater picture at the cost of rolling scan. I sure wish they would bring it back...
The CX and C1 already have great pictures. I think for monitor usage I would not be interested in an even greater picture at the cost of rolling scan. I sure wish they would bring it back...
phinix
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 914
48CX, just checked the UTT - 8214 hours, since 01/2021. 5 years heavy usage. No burn-in.
I spend around 8 hours a day, working (desktop apps like ms office), then 4 hours desktop/gaming. 10-12 hours a days.
I keep OLED light around 20 for work, 80 for gaming.
Only thing I got are those dead pixels. Counted over 70 around the edges - called service, getting OLED panel replaced and will sell it to buy 42" C4.
I spend around 8 hours a day, working (desktop apps like ms office), then 4 hours desktop/gaming. 10-12 hours a days.
I keep OLED light around 20 for work, 80 for gaming.
Only thing I got are those dead pixels. Counted over 70 around the edges - called service, getting OLED panel replaced and will sell it to buy 42" C4.
Last edited:
Curious what people are using nowadays. I honestly kind of regret swapping my 48CX with PG32UCDP. 48CX had me smiling every time I gamed on it - immersive, great HDR, great colors after calibration. PG32UCDP in contrast has a weird broken HDR curve, gamma curve/black level issues, and feels small with limited calibration controls, all like typical PC monitors it seems. It's great for FPS games, but everything else it kind of sucks.
Thinking I should just get a 42" C4 and go back to happy land. Or figure out how to make both work.
Thinking I should just get a 42" C4 and go back to happy land. Or figure out how to make both work.
Last edited:
Yes the C5 looks fantastic, I am seriously thinking about it.
If Asus bothered to fix their broken ass firmware, I might feel better about keeping it. I got spoiled by LG's insane firmware team, still releasing updates to the CX to this day.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
I just upgraded to the Samsung S95F. If you want the best HDR experience then either that or the G5 is the way to go. IMO the C5 is too small of an improvement to be worth it over a CX, sure it's slightly better than the CX but you will not get a day and night difference. I also have the PG32UCDP but that is solely used for playing non HDR competitive shooters such as Marvel Rivals, Valorant, or The Finals. Everything else is played on the S95F and it's been an insane eye treat I'm playing everything on it from Oblivion Remake to Clair Obscur, Indiana Jones, Baldur's Gate 3, Talos Principle Reawakened, STALKER 2, Days Gone.
S95F does look fantastic. For my desk though, I think 42" is the limit. My only issue with 48CX really was it was just slightly too large to be comfortable, so 55 would not really work for me unless I figure out a different mounting system.
edit: Hmm you're tempting me. I love good HDR. Maybe I can make this work. How do you fit the s95f and pg32ucdp?
Last edited:
I'm one of the freaks that actually liked 48cx a lot for productivity. It's like having two portrait monitors next to each other. Only issue is the text fringing which is obviously much better on the newer woled 32". Personally I don't really like ultrawide for anything, except FPS. It's bad for watching content and I'd rather just have a taller screen for productivity stuff.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,718
I have them on two separate desks actually.
I just need more verticle panes lol.
I have the CX hooked up to my 16" MBP in a stand, and the iPad Pro M4 w/ magic keyboard underneath running as a third monitor. I still need another pane!
Outlook, Teams, Chrome, Word, Excel, and Foxit, and occasionally AutoCAD. At the same time.
Outlook goes on the MBP display, Teams on the iPad, and then having to play musical chairs with the others on the CX. Lots of lost time shuffling programs around.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,877
55" CX was a game changer in 2020 and 55" S95B was another game changer in 2022. I haven't gamed on a PC monitor in more than 5 years. Yes, the height is a huge deal. 4k fills out the large screens nicely. Samsung QD-OLED panels brought the brightness, color volume, and screen uniformity that the CX lacked. For productivity/desktop, unless the matte really screwed something up or you are super stingy about text, the S95F should be amazing. Using a black screensaver and hiding the taskbar will alleviate concerns about burn-in. I'm at two years plus with the 65" S95C and have no dead pixels, no burn-in, and am still impressed with the desktop uniformity every time I look at it.