The adapter does not support VRR at the moment.
![[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
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,940
I was just going from review sites but yes that is even farther away from 120fpsHz solid (8.3ms) or 117 capped (8.55ms) .
From what I looked up the tick rate of diabolical is 125 which is around 8ms per tick, or 8ms between each frame of updated game world delivered. There is more to the prediction code than that and in relation to other player's own server/tick rate relationships but in general while you could experience higher frame rates locally if you were at 200fps (solid for example) on a 200Hz monitor (5ms per frame) or 240fps solid on a 240Hz monitor (4.16ms per frame), unless you were playing on a LAN vs other players on the same LAN (and the game allowed higher local game server tick rates) you wouldn't be seeing any newer game world states any sooner from the server's 8ms world state slices including your opponents and teammates actions and location states among other things. You'd still get more blur reduction and motion definition locally which is appreciable even just from an aesthetic viewpoint though. Whether it would provide any actual benefit scoring wise would be debatable since that tick rate I quoted isn't even factoring in your ping times (+ ??ms) and using interp_2 (tick rate in ms x2) to avoid 250ms penalty on any packet loss.
Last edited:
I don't think 250fps helps me much and I am no professional anyway, but I can't use g-sync yet on the CX because of the 1080 ti - so it's the next best thing to have super low latency and good smoothness+nearly invisible tearing.
If I could use g-sync, I'd be playing at a locked 117fps+g-sync+v-sync any day. I am totally addicted to the perfectly smooth and tear free experience of VRR, it's a night and day difference to my eyes (but I also adore OLED picture quality). Been using g-sync since 2014 and this is the first time I find myself gaming without it since that time. It's rough, you have no idea how much this botched Ampere launch hurt me lol
Anyway I was just giving an example of a potential use case for 240hz+ on a 4k display. And heck, for that type of game it could even be limited to 1080p I wouldn't mind. But yeah, I'm only asking for flawless OLED 4k 120hz VRR at this time. That will content me for a long while.
If I could use g-sync, I'd be playing at a locked 117fps+g-sync+v-sync any day. I am totally addicted to the perfectly smooth and tear free experience of VRR, it's a night and day difference to my eyes (but I also adore OLED picture quality). Been using g-sync since 2014 and this is the first time I find myself gaming without it since that time. It's rough, you have no idea how much this botched Ampere launch hurt me lol
Anyway I was just giving an example of a potential use case for 240hz+ on a 4k display. And heck, for that type of game it could even be limited to 1080p I wouldn't mind. But yeah, I'm only asking for flawless OLED 4k 120hz VRR at this time. That will content me for a long while.
Pricing is why... we're already in a place where the 55" was $1200 recently. Once you go lower the profits just dry up. I do have the Gigabyte Aero OLED these days so computer monitor usage is coming along. I do have the 55" CX and just sit further away than I normally would.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,940
I'm all for high Hz. I'm hoping along with AI upscaling that perhaps eventually a very low latency interpolation is developed to multiply frames x 3 , x10 etc.. will come into play someyear. That way the very high Hz screens won't just be a number most games can't reach or maintain. Once you get a decent 100fps frame rate (even using DLSS/ AI upscaling), with some future low latency and artifact free interpolation you could theoretically multiply that x3 to 300fps. 300fpsHZ would have greatly reduced blur (even if the motion definition was still near 100fps). 100fps x10 to hit 1000fps on a 1000Hz monitor is the future goal because at that point you'd be a 1ms or 1px blur like a graphics professional crt (fw900).. which is essentially "zero" blur.
This kind of blur charted below would happen when moving the entire viewport at speed. On slower mouselooking and slight movement, slower turning speeds, etc.. it wouldn't necessarily exhibit as much blur. At 120fpsHz (Solid) it's more of a vibration blur "within the lines". The more you sink toward 60fpsHz it becomes a smearing blur outside of the lines.
www.blurbusters.com
For now on older and less demanding games I'd still appreciate higher (than 120) hz a lot aesthetically considering the blur reduction. I just don't agree with the competitive edge margins some people claim, especially when it comes to online games with the whole chain of tick rate, ping times, server prediction code, etc. between all players and the server... and even moreso for games where you have a lot of demanding graphic detail where you are perhaps dialing in settings plus relying on VRR to ride a roller coaster of frame rates. Hopefully that would mean keeping the middle and high range nearer to 100 - 1117fps on a 120hz screen to utilize the higher hz but you still wouldn't be at 117fps SOLID 2/3 of the graph. Even that is a challenge to achieve on some games so an over 120hz screen for those games is irrelevant.
This kind of blur charted below would happen when moving the entire viewport at speed. On slower mouselooking and slight movement, slower turning speeds, etc.. it wouldn't necessarily exhibit as much blur. At 120fpsHz (Solid) it's more of a vibration blur "within the lines". The more you sink toward 60fpsHz it becomes a smearing blur outside of the lines.
www.blurbusters.com
For now on older and less demanding games I'd still appreciate higher (than 120) hz a lot aesthetically considering the blur reduction. I just don't agree with the competitive edge margins some people claim, especially when it comes to online games with the whole chain of tick rate, ping times, server prediction code, etc. between all players and the server... and even moreso for games where you have a lot of demanding graphic detail where you are perhaps dialing in settings plus relying on VRR to ride a roller coaster of frame rates. Hopefully that would mean keeping the middle and high range nearer to 100 - 1117fps on a 120hz screen to utilize the higher hz but you still wouldn't be at 117fps SOLID 2/3 of the graph. Even that is a challenge to achieve on some games so an over 120hz screen for those games is irrelevant.
Last edited:
t1337duder
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2014
- Messages
- 783
Do a lot of people actually get high Hz monitors with the sole purpose of competitive gaming? I'd be very surprise if there were many that are on a level where that would make a significant difference. The only reason I make the point is because I've seen competitive players use 60Hz to no significant detriment (e.g. YouTuber Rocket League Gaming) and basically said that the major benefit of higher Hz really just comes down to preference of smoother motion. The idea that people should make their monitor purchasing decisions off the promise of "owning newbs" rather than what actually looks the best to me seems propagated by companies that are just trying to sell gimmicky monitors. That's why a lot of once high-end monitors (e.g. Acer Predator 27" 1440P 144hZ G-Sync) are pretty junky and have relatively poor IQ. Still many high end monitors are still like this, and get sold to impressionable gamers who's preferences are basically dictated to them by the companies they buy products from.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,720
I would say it depends on the person. One of my friends plays no better at 144Hz than he does at 60Hz even though he can see the difference in overall smoothness and clarity. At 240Hz yeah there's definitely very few people who would significantly benefit from it. I think from nvidia's own research, wasn't the % difference in gaming performance going from 144Hz to 240Hz in the single digits? And I think that testing was done on professional players as well. Nothing really noteworthy for those of us who just play for fun and not for prize money. 240Hz looks better than 120Hz of course, but doesn't magically makes all of us better players.
Imho the last 2 comments nailed it. Professional Gamers playing for prize money in competetive shooters is the group that actually benefits from those extreme high refresh rate monitors.
For casual gaming and heck, even competitive racing it's completely irrelevant.
I was competitively into iRacing a few years back (would still be if time would permit it) and I was racing on triple-40" 60Hz 1080p TVs. Not once did I wish that I had a 360Hz 32:9 monitor.
For playing competitive shooters on the other hand I'd love to have my old CRT back. No LCD/OLED on the planet can currently match what my 30 year old CRT had to offer for that specific purpose - and that's the void those high refresh monitors (hopelessly) try to fill.
Right now I want a big fat gaming display for casual, relaxed gaming and a 120+Hz 8k HMD and a graphics card that could drive that for competitive racing. At least one of those wishes morphed from a unicorn into reality thanks to LG. For the other ones I just pray to the availability gods..
For casual gaming and heck, even competitive racing it's completely irrelevant.
I was competitively into iRacing a few years back (would still be if time would permit it) and I was racing on triple-40" 60Hz 1080p TVs. Not once did I wish that I had a 360Hz 32:9 monitor.
For playing competitive shooters on the other hand I'd love to have my old CRT back. No LCD/OLED on the planet can currently match what my 30 year old CRT had to offer for that specific purpose - and that's the void those high refresh monitors (hopelessly) try to fill.
Right now I want a big fat gaming display for casual, relaxed gaming and a 120+Hz 8k HMD and a graphics card that could drive that for competitive racing. At least one of those wishes morphed from a unicorn into reality thanks to LG. For the other ones I just pray to the availability gods..
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,940
I'd just like to point out again that professional gamers in studio competitions play on LAN games vs other players on the LAN.
Most of the test I've seen, including a big linus one with 3 different people including linus taking turns playing, were comparisons of local (LAN) gameplay I think, running the same map over and over vs bots to see the exact same timings as a bot crosses a blind corner's threshold.
Once you frame it in online gaming you have to factor in
--- the online latency/ping (15ms - 25ms best case for most people if the server even allows you to choose manually??) data transmission relationship to and from server
.... + server code/prediction intlerp at around 15ms to start with outside of your ping on a 128tick servver (most game's servers are much longer ticks so 30ms+ in those cases)
....everyone elses action states with their own latency compensations
....the quality of the game/server's net code
Command Execution Time = Current Server Time – (Packet Latency + Client View Interpolation)
You are probably at multiple frames of local fpsHz between when you can see the actual server state "slice" get updated. That also goes for when your actions and positions resolve to everyone else. The net code can do some trickery but in raw numbers lets say for example you are playing a 128tick server and you aren't willing to risk a 250ms disconnect penalty for any lost frames so are using interp_2 (the default).
That would mean 15ms interp + say 25ms ping (being generous) = 40ms between server state updates, which is 5frames at 120fpsHz solid or 5.8 ~ 6frames at 144fpsHz..
So I highly doubt it matters from a scoring perspective. When even a 125 tick or 128tick server is serving you world state slices multiple frames behind your display's own fpsHz even at a solid 120fpsHz or 144Hz I think it's more about aesthetics. And a lot of game's are a lot longer ticks than that.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,720
Latency isn't the only advantage of going from 144Hz to 240Hz so even if the latency advantage is nonexistent, the other advantages of moving to 240Hz are still there. Just again, those advantages won't make the majority of us better players even if we can see and appreciate it like the reduction in sample and hold blurring. My Omen X27 offers better sample and hold motion clarity than my CX but does that mean that I play Warzone any better at 1440p with higher frame rates and less sample and hold blurring on my Omen vs my CX at 4k with lower frame rates + more sample and hold blurring? Nah.
Last edited:
TFTCentral review seems to suggest the same settings I have been using which were based on Rtings.com review recommendations. I would advice not using the R, G, B settings they recommend because those vary panel by panel. I had to turn down G and B slightly instead.
Pretty much what I say. Simon knows his shit and I do too.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,940
"The TV market is not really an area we follow at TFTCentral as we are focused primarily on desktop monitors."
Times change
Times change
Gatecrasher3000
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 593
Really hoping we don't need to wait till after Hopper/RDNA3 to get those 4K frames locked above 120fps. Let's see what Hopper/RDNA3 MCM design can do, who knows, maybe it will blow monolithic die designs out of the water.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,940
Thing is games and tech will always push the frame rates back down , like RTX/raytracing and hairworks, even physx does for example. Just scene complexity alone and view distances with animated objects and shadows/lighting throughout the distance can crush frame rates if devs were to push the limits higher. There is a reason corridor shooters tend to have much higher frame rates for example. The challenge for devs is to whittle games down to fit "realtime" (often using background and view distance tricks).. not the other way around.
So what I'm getting at is you can eventually get a gpu to play today's games with their current graphics limits/caps at over 120fps but the eye candy dial will just get cranked up even farther in future game generations, as well as there sometimes being patches and/or mods to the previous generation's games that are made to utilize the higher graphics power. It's an arms race and the gpus are always going to lag behind since the highest graphics fidelity possible is in a render farm for cgi work rending frames very slowly across multiple pcs/cpus. I think at some point there is going to have to be a really good form of interpolation developed to multiply a healthy frame rate of say 100fps multiple times, as mentioned in this blurbuster's article:
https://blurbusters.com/blur-buster...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
However AI upscaling at least seems promising for some higher frame rates though it's being marketed somewhat as a counterbalance to the RTX/raytracing hit on fps. I'm more intrested in 100fps average or higher. Now I'll have to seek out DLSS supported titles rather than SLI titles.
So what I'm getting at is you can eventually get a gpu to play today's games with their current graphics limits/caps at over 120fps but the eye candy dial will just get cranked up even farther in future game generations, as well as there sometimes being patches and/or mods to the previous generation's games that are made to utilize the higher graphics power. It's an arms race and the gpus are always going to lag behind since the highest graphics fidelity possible is in a render farm for cgi work rending frames very slowly across multiple pcs/cpus. I think at some point there is going to have to be a really good form of interpolation developed to multiply a healthy frame rate of say 100fps multiple times, as mentioned in this blurbuster's article:
https://blurbusters.com/blur-buster...000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/
However AI upscaling at least seems promising for some higher frame rates though it's being marketed somewhat as a counterbalance to the RTX/raytracing hit on fps. I'm more intrested in 100fps average or higher. Now I'll have to seek out DLSS supported titles rather than SLI titles
.- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,720
I really hope LG considers adding some sort of BFI + VRR feature on their next sets. BFI is absolutely freaking amazing when used under the right conditions and I would immediately upgrade to a C11 if it had a "BFI-sync" function. Yeah it's probably never going to be compatible with HDR due to killing brightness levels but if I had to choose between having HDR but then negating all that image quality out with sample and hold blur vs having perfect motion clarity in SDR instead, I would choose the latter.
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,929
Just go my CX48 and it's defaulting to 350% in the "change the size of text, apps, and other items." At this scaling, txt is super sharp but way too big. However, if I drop it down to anything less, I can start to notices some fuzziness around the txt. What is everyone running at?
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,720
1. Make sure you are running 444/RGB chroma with the latest firmware update. Older firmware downsampled to 422 (At 120Hz, 60Hz is fine).
2. Make sure you have screenshift disabled.
3. Make sure you have the input labeled as PC in order for text to display properly.
Attachments
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,720
You'll have to sign out of windows after changing the scaling value for it to take effect. If you still have fuzzy text after doing all the above then I'm not sure what to do after that. You could try toggling screenshift on and then back off as it's been bugged for a while now.
Man coming from years of LCD use to OLED, i'm not sure how I feel about everything looking so dark and blackish, the whites (in explorer and brower windows) seem subdued. And I've got the brightness turned up to like 80! Does it just take a while to get use to?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 19,736
Your brightness or OLED light level is 80? The OLED light setting in particular can have a huge effect. Mine's set to 25, and yeah it took a little getting used to but at night any setting much higher than that would cause me to squint when white windows were displayed, lol. And the default setting was eye-searing. But, I was coming from a previous OLED, not an LCD. If you've been running your LCD at an extremely high brightness then maybe that's it. But I assure you this thing gets PLENTY bright for most people unless your room lighting is insane or something. Check your picture mode settings and also maybe cycle through the different picture modes to see what they look like.
mirkendargen
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 435
If you want whites in Windows to sear your retinas just enable HDR and don't turn the SDR content slider in the HDR options down, lol.
I thought you want to keep "Play hadr games and apps" slider to on? Where is the SDR content slider?
This is what I'm running:
Picture mode - Game
Oled Light 100, Contrast 100, Brightness 60, Sharpness 5, Color 55, Tint 0, Dynamic Contrast Low, Dynamic Tone Mapping Off, Super Res Off, Color Gamut Auto, White Balance Warm 1
In Picture Options, I seem to like Black Level High
Energy Saving Off
Eye Comfort Off
HDMI UHD Deep Color On
What font size scale are you running? 100%?150%?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 19,736
100% here. I'll only use scaling if I have to (like a 15" 4K laptop screen).
What was your previous LCD? It might help to compare the brightness/luminance levels that it's capable of vs. the CX. Personally, I think those higher OLED light settings are REALLY bright. I've been running the Dark windows theme along with dark browser modes/extensions where possible, so maybe I've just acclimated myself to the point where the windows that you're talking about appear very bright and white because there's such an extreme contrast from my desktop background and other windows.
What was your previous LCD? It might help to compare the brightness/luminance levels that it's capable of vs. the CX. Personally, I think those higher OLED light settings are REALLY bright. I've been running the Dark windows theme along with dark browser modes/extensions where possible, so maybe I've just acclimated myself to the point where the windows that you're talking about appear very bright and white because there's such an extreme contrast from my desktop background and other windows.
Do you still have oled blacks at 60 brightness? If so which model? Or do you sacrifice the blacks for calibration?
I also run 100 contrast game mode (this seems necessary to mitigate black crush), and then brightness 51. brightness 52 and up no longer provide total black on my 55cx, but rather dark grey, similar to plasma. (which is probably fine in a somewhat bright room).
This is for the just received cx 48" and I'm using it purely as monitor for gaming.
I'm just curious if you really have oled blacks over 51 brightness? I don't. 100 contrast 52 brightness for me kills blacks. 100 contrast 51 brightness still has oled blacks.
(and to be very precise, if I turn the room pitch black, and set a full black screen, 100 contrast 49 brightness is the blackest black, 50-51 adds nearly imperceptible light that will still appear as perfect black in any content, while improving dark scene precision. 52 is simply not black).
Last edited:
I've got the same issue....was using a B7 with a C9 and now a C9 with a CX in the same room. I switched to using Alexa to power on/off the "tv" and i just press the button on the bottom of the "monitor".
You can set different IDs for the different remotes so that most functionality is separated........uses bluetooth............but the Power On/Off is infrared and just powers on anything LG.
mirkendargen
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 435
Black level has a correct answer (although LG reverses the names for some reason) and you should check whether you're sending full range (0 = black, black level high) or limited range (16 = black, black level low), or just leave it Auto because the TV knows what it's doing. If you do black level high on a limited range signal black will be grey, if you do black level low on a full range signal 0-16 will be crushed to black.
Last edited:
I was almost set to buy one of these but I think I'll wait for confirmation of a fully functional firmware. If it can't do ALL the features on at once with no drama (4k, 4:4:4, 120hz, GSync VRR, Low Latency) there's no reason for me to fork over $1500. If it WILL, then absolutely. They need to get all of this sorted out because frankly if they want high end enthusiast users to adopt OLED and risk burn-in longevity issue then EVERYTHING else needs to be working properly.
Again, this also happens on a 2070Super for me on .20 and .25FW if I mess with VSync on/off after starting a full screen game.
It looks like it switches to Half-VSync and duplicates frames like crazy. Once I toggle vsync back on it usually goes back to normal after a few seconds.
This starts to look like an hdmi-handshake problem or something..
We'll see in a couple of weeks if it's an LG issue is the same bugs start appearing on AMD Big Navi or Next Gen consoles or if it's LG's problem.. my guess still is a driver problem on nvidia's side.. or Win10..
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Messages
- 441
I've calculated the formula for the HDR / SDR brightness balance slider in Windows.
A slider value of 10 is 120 nits. From the TFTCentral review, an OLED Light value of 36 on the TV in SDR mode is approximately 120 nits.
Code:
Slider Value = ((Target Nits * 1000 / 80 ) - 1000) * 100 / 5000
Last edited: