LG plugs NVIDIA G-Sync into its 2019 OLED TVs

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
282
Not that it wasn't a near impossible sell already, but that Dell OLED is literally DOA now at the price they announced... paying more than twice for DP 1.4 connectivity, and no HDR, when you now get same VRR functionality (with HDR) over HDMI on LG TV's... HA!! But you do get RGB on the rear at least. :D
Lol yeah I know. The Alienware was a joke before but now even more so.

$1600 55" C9 vs $4000 55" Alienware

+$2,400 extra for DP 1.4 (and RGBzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

But lose: HDR & HDMI 2.1 for future console/GPU use
 

coolhandm3

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
386
In the defense of the Alienware oled, you can currently use it at 4k 120 with freesync, we will have to wait until gpus with hdmi 2.1 to do it on the LG c9.

The alienware price is still bonkers though...
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
282
I really want to wait it out for the supposed LG 48" OLED next year but there's a good chance it may be a "budget" model line like the "B" series of LG OLED's this year. It may be lacking the newest processor chip, advanced motion features, etc. that that B model didn't have this year versus the C+ models. It may not even support G-Sync just like the B models.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
The VRR range is claimed to be 40-120 at 3840x2160. Not sure how that's possible unless they are able to add full bandwidth HDMI 2.1 via firmware/driver update to RTX cards. Or this is just a future looking maximum for next gen cards.
I take the stats in the table as "up to" stats. You get "up to" that resolution, and "up to" that refresh. I expect you have to drop to 1440p to get 120Hz.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,132
Anyone here Hard enough too get a 77 incher?
I hope it isn't too much for my wife to handle, but I think I can convince her I can squeeze it in.
 

Vega

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
6,515
The VRR range is claimed to be 40-120 at 3840x2160. Not sure how that's possible unless they are able to add full bandwidth HDMI 2.1 via firmware/driver update to RTX cards. Or this is just a future looking maximum for next gen cards.
The 2019 OLED's are fully capable of that since they have full HDMI 2.1 chips in them. Only thing missing is HDMI 2.1 video cards...
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
The 2019 OLED's are fully capable of that since they have full HDMI 2.1 chips in them. Only thing missing is HDMI 2.1 video cards...
Ah yeah good point, just might be the capability of the TV. I know it's unlikely, but I'm really hoping that Ampere releases with HDMI 2.1 support before Cyberpunk 2077 comes out. That would be the dream. I really don't want to shell out for a 2080TI when I have a 1080TI now, ugh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
Ah yeah good point, just might be the capability of the TV. I know it's unlikely, but I'm really hoping that Ampere releases with HDMI 2.1 support before Cyberpunk 2077 comes out. That would be the dream. I really don't want to shell out for a 2080TI when I have a 1080TI now, ugh.
Window for NVIDIA's next generation opens up around March next year, so it's possible. I don't think we'll have to wait another 28 months like we did for Turing.
 

l88bastard

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
2,830
Lol yeah I know. The Alienware was a joke before but now even more so.

$1600 55" C9 vs $4000 55" Alienware

+$2,400 extra for DP 1.4 (and RGBzzzzzzzzzzzzz)

But lose: HDR & HDMI 2.1 for future console/GPU use
RGB??? WTF are you talking about? The Alienware OLED 55 uses the EXACT same panel as the LG C9 55"
 

Fleat

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
973
This is more or less what I have been waiting for. I currently have two of the recent best "gaming" monitors and I still spend most of my time playing on my OLED. This is just the cherry on top for me.
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
282
Just following up on my own post about an eARC receiver to pair with the C9. Looks like it's not a good idea right now. Might be best to wait for the C10 model and/or true HDMI 2.1 receivers next year if truly trying to pair a PC to an OLED with 7.1 surround sound (& have VRR/Gsync). Looks like the LG C9 doesn't actually do eARC correctly or too well (only uncompressed stereo sound, not 5.1 or 7.1) and it looks like all the receivers with their fake HDMI 2.1 updates to add eARC support have a slew of their own problems too.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...s-general/3072900-lg-c9-earc-info-thread.html
https://lgcommunity.us.com/discussion/4423/oled-c9-edid-limitation-regarding-hdmi-earc-pass-through
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,928
Instant purchase for me coming from a B7, no question about it. This will be like my current OLED, but on steroids.

The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the 48" will be gimped in some way. I want the smallest panel that has the flagship features, whether that ends up being 48" or 55".
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,777
The 2019 OLED's are fully capable of that since they have full HDMI 2.1 chips in them. Only thing missing is HDMI 2.1 video cards...
Yeah, but if the claimed VRR range holds up, this makes it much more attractive to purchase a E9/C9 now rather then wait for HDMI 2.1 GPUs to release. I was hoping for a slightly better lower limit though, but still covers a much wider range then Samsungs alternatives (48-60Hz).

I'm kind of surprised the B9 isn't also getting support; it's the same panel I believe. Guess it's product differentiation, given the lack of differences between the B9 and C9 series.
 

kalston

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,131
I don't think the lower range limit matters with LFC though. From what I've seen (looked at several reviews and user comments) when nvidia says a display is g-sync compatible it means LFC is in. When the display is not on nvidia's list though... anything goes.

Anyway this is actually really big news. Besides the size which might not be convenient for everyone this is getting really close to a "perfect" display.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
Yeah, but if the claimed VRR range holds up, this makes it much more attractive to purchase a E9/C9 now rather then wait for HDMI 2.1 GPUs to release. I was hoping for a slightly better lower limit though, but still covers a much wider range then Samsungs alternatives (48-60Hz).

I'm kind of surprised the B9 isn't also getting support; it's the same panel I believe. Guess it's product differentiation, given the lack of differences between the B9 and C9 series.
The B9 uses the lesser α7 processor while the C9 gets the α9. The differences between the processors may be the reason why.
 

demu

n00b
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
56
The B9 uses the lesser α7 processor while the C9 gets the α9. The differences between the processors may be the reason why.
The biggest difference is, that α9 supports 4K@120Hz HDR while α7 supports 4K@120Hz wihthout HDR (though HDR is supported with other resolutions/frequences).
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,777
The biggest difference is, that α9 supports 4K@120Hz HDR while α7 supports 4K@120Hz wihthout HDR (though HDR is supported with other resolutions/frequences).
Source? I don't see any such limitation anywhere.
 

demu

n00b
Joined
Aug 26, 2013
Messages
56

mikeo

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
622
The C9s are on sale till the end of the month too, might upgrade my 55 C8 to a C9.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,809
Very good news about the hdmi 2.1 and VRR capability and support. I'd be interested in a very large C10 for the living room and my 7.1 surround system.

--------

I currently have a 32" 1440p gaming VA as my middle monitor with a 43" 4k tv on each side.

-The 43" 4k displays at about 3' , 38" - 40" viewing distance look similar to the ppi of a 2560x1440 27" at the typical 1.5' to 2' away.

-The 32" 1440p 16:9's ppi is lacking. A 48" 4k would have similar ppi,even worse. A 55" would be way worse than that.

Unless I set up a considerably far viewing arrangement for a 55" with my desk far away as it's own island (or perhaps was using a couchmaster type setup off of a couch or chair) I wouldn't consider these larger Tvs. Anything over 43" at 3' to 3.5' is jumbo ppi like a 32" 1440p.
 

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
Very good news about the hdmi 2.1 and VRR capability and support. I'd be interested in a very large C10 for the living room and my 7.1 surround system.

--------

I currently have a 32" 1440p gaming VA as my middle monitor with a 43" 4k tv on each side.

-The 43" 4k displays at about 3' , 38" - 40" viewing distance look similar to the ppi of a 2560x1440 27" at the typical 1.5' to 2' away.

-The 32" 1440p 16:9's ppi is lacking. A 48" 4k would have similar ppi,even worse. A 55" would be way worse than that.

Unless I set up a considerably far viewing arrangement for a 55" with my desk far away as it's own island (or perhaps was using a couchmaster type setup off of a couch or chair) I wouldn't consider these larger Tvs. Anything over 43" at 3' to 3.5' is jumbo ppi like a 32" 1440p.

Indeed... 32" 4K is ideal PPI at a 70-80cm viewing distance. 40" would just about be the max for most people (if they could fit that on a desk), assuming 20/20 vision. I could live with 43" if it was an amazing enough monitor, but there is none that even come close at present (I don't expect the CG437K or XG43UQ to be any better than the XG438Q). A 55" OLED, while lovely to look at, is obviously wayyyyy too big unless you're in a lounge environment, and the 48" from LG due next year doesn't help much in that regard. We can forget anything smaller for years yet.

I really don't see anything on the PC monitor horizon to get that excited about unfortunately... the MiniLED with more zone monitors coming next year will prove interesting, but the prices will be insane. Asus' aforementioned XG438Q was a big let down and LG's 38GL950G is stupidly overpriced with measly HDR 400. The 32" Philips 328M1R (120Hz 4K) might be half decent, and should be affordable when it arrives early next year, but overall... meh! :meh:
 
Last edited:

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
-The 32" 1440p 16:9's ppi is lacking. A 48" 4k would have similar ppi,even worse. A 55" would be way worse than that.
This is extremely dependent on individual vision, and viewing distance.

I use a 24" 1920x1200 (94 PPI), which I use from 32-36". I find that perfectly fine, and usable without any scaling. Also according to "Is this Retina" that becomes retina at 36". It turns out the "Retina" benchmark works well for me.

32" (really 31.5") 1440p is 93 PPI is nearly the same, and is exactly what I want. In theory I goes "Retina" at 37" and I don't need to scale.

48" UHD is ~92 PPI, Retina at 37"... That would still be great for me. But the real problem is I wouldn't be remotely comfortable sitting that close to a screen that large. So pushing it further back, I would probably reach the point where the PPI would be "too good", and I would need scaling...
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,928
Indeed... 32" 4K is ideal PPI at a 70-80cm viewing distance. 40" would just about be the max for most people (if they could fit that on a desk), assuming 20/20 vision. I could live with 43" if it was an amazing enough monitor, but there is none that even come close at present (I don't expect the CG437K or XG43UQ to be any better than the XG438Q). A 55" OLED, while lovely to look at, is obviously wayyyyy too big unless you're in a lounge environment, and the 48" from LG due next year doesn't help much in that regard. We can forget anything smaller for years yet.

I really don't see anything on the PC monitor horizon to get that excited about unfortunately... the MiniLED with more zone monitors coming next year will prove interesting, but the prices will be insane. Asus' aforementioned XG438Q was a big let down and LG's 38GL950G is stupidly overpriced with measly HDR 400. The 32" Philips 328M1R (120Hz 4K) might be half decent, and should be affordable when it arrives early next year, but overall... meh! :meh:
How large of a monitor have you personally used for any length of time? I ask because I used to think the same thing, but in practice anything up to 48" really isn't as insane as I believe you're making it out to be. Of course part of that is one's personal preferences and tolerances, but I remember way back when the Westinghouse 37" 1080p monitor was all the rage. There was a huge thread here that was dedicated to it because it was one of the only displays in that size range that was built as a monitor. After using the Dell 30" displays, which felt huge at one time, the 37" initially felt massive but it was perfectly usable.

Fast forward years later when 1080p wasn't cutting it for most [H] users anymore and many of us began using 1440p displays (both 2560x1440 and 3840x1440, as by this time 2560x1600 had fallen by the wayside). I went from a 34" ultrawide to a 40" 4K Samsung and again, it felt huge at first. Again, there was another huge thread on them because they were the first 4K TVs that did 4:4:4 perfectly and had decent input lag numbers. Many people in that thread were opting for the 48" and 55" models and kept talking about how awesome they were for gaming. When the quantum dot series came out, Samsung didn't make a 40" and the smallest size offered was a 48", so I had to get that one. I'm sure you can guess what happened. :) Initially it was like OMG but I ended up using that TV for a couple of years and it was fine.

Then the same thing happened again with the LG OLEDs, with 55" being the smallest size offered, and I'll admit it's huge and probably too large for most people at a typical viewing distance but I circumvent that by not running apps full screen and instead resizing them to roughly what a 40-43" monitor would be. I find text to be fine on it; it's not as if I'm like "Holy cow text is horrible on this thing and I only put up with it because I have to!" I understand it's not an ideal PPI for many people, but the sharpness is fine using it 8+ hours a day. Gaming is pretty damn awesome as it's like gaming on an IMAX but I've said before that if/when they release a 48" with all of the new gaming features I'll be one of the first to buy it because I do think that is a better size for a monitor. Point is though, plenty of us have used or are using 48-55" at desktop distances and it's perfectly doable.

All this to say that unless/until you actually use one of these for any length of time, it's perfectly understandable why you would think that something like a 48" is way too big. It is, until it isn't anymore. :) They do seem massive at first, but that feeling lessens over time to some degree. I'm not even arguing that 43" wouldn't be an ideal size, but as you've said we can forget about even entertaining the thought of an OLED that size for the time being.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,809
bananadude -
I'm still considering the asus 43inch as a for now monitor but I'm waiting to see what the 1000nit models reviews look like whenever those come out. I also think it's worth more like $850 plus tax rather than $1100 plus tax so if there's a sale or price drop in a few months I'd be much more likely to grab one. I have big VESA mounts so Flipping it for rgb is not an issue if I need to.

In the $2000+ range I'd rather save that toward buying a flagship 70"+ hdmi 2.1 oled or fald qled in 2020+.

To me its looking like we'll have hdmi 2.1 tvs and the next gen of 120hz quasi-4k consoles before full hdmi 2. 1, 4k 120hz + VRR + QFT input and output on pc oriented hardware.

Snowdog -

I still stand by what the ppi is as well as the distances. If my vision was weakened I'd wear glasses not get a lower ppi monitor.

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

22.5" diagonal 16:10 .. 19.1" w x 11.9" h (1920x1200 ~ 100.6 ppi) FW900 crt

27.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 23.5" w x 13.2" h (2560x1440 ~ 108.79 ppi)
34.0" diagonal 21:9 .. 31.4" w x 13.1" h (3440x1440 ~ 109.68 ppi)

37.5" diagonal 21:10 .. 34.6" w x 14.4" h (3840x1600 ~ 110.93 ppi)

31.5" diagonal 16:9 .. 27.5" w x 15.4" h (2560x1440 ~ 93.24 ppi) .. (3840x2160 ~ 137.68ppi)

40.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 34.9"w x 19.6" h (3840x2160 ~ 110.15ppi)

43.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 37.5" w x 21.1" h (3840x2160 ~ 102.46 ppi)

48.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 41.8"w x 23.5" h (3840x2160 ~ 91.79 ppi)

55.0" diagonal 16:9 .. 47.9"w x 27.0"h (3840x2160 ~ 80.11 ppi)

----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:

bananadude

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
370
How large of a monitor have you personally used for any length of time? I ask because I used to think the same thing, but in practice anything up to 48" really isn't as insane as I believe you're making it out to be. Of course part of that is one's personal preferences and tolerances, but I remember way back when the Westinghouse 37" 1080p monitor was all the rage. There was a huge thread here that was dedicated to it because it was one of the only displays in that size range that was built as a monitor. After using the Dell 30" displays, which felt huge at one time, the 37" initially felt massive but it was perfectly usable.

Fast forward years later when 1080p wasn't cutting it for most [H] users anymore and many of us began using 1440p displays (both 2560x1440 and 3840x1440, as by this time 2560x1600 had fallen by the wayside). I went from a 34" ultrawide to a 40" 4K Samsung and again, it felt huge at first. Again, there was another huge thread on them because they were the first 4K TVs that did 4:4:4 perfectly and had decent input lag numbers. Many people in that thread were opting for the 48" and 55" models and kept talking about how awesome they were for gaming. When the quantum dot series came out, Samsung didn't make a 40" and the smallest size offered was a 48", so I had to get that one. I'm sure you can guess what happened. :) Initially it was like OMG but I ended up using that TV for a couple of years and it was fine.

Then the same thing happened again with the LG OLEDs, with 55" being the smallest size offered, and I'll admit it's huge and probably too large for most people at a typical viewing distance but I circumvent that by not running apps full screen and instead resizing them to roughly what a 40-43" monitor would be. I find text to be fine on it; it's not as if I'm like "Holy cow text is horrible on this thing and I only put up with it because I have to!" I understand it's not an ideal PPI for many people, but the sharpness is fine using it 8+ hours a day. Gaming is pretty damn awesome as it's like gaming on an IMAX but I've said before that if/when they release a 48" with all of the new gaming features I'll be one of the first to buy it because I do think that is a better size for a monitor. Point is though, plenty of us have used or are using 48-55" at desktop distances and it's perfectly doable.

All this to say that unless/until you actually use one of these for any length of time, it's perfectly understandable why you would think that something like a 48" is way too big. It is, until it isn't anymore. :) They do seem massive at first, but that feeling lessens over time to some degree. I'm not even arguing that 43" wouldn't be an ideal size, but as you've said we can forget about even entertaining the thought of an OLED that size for the time being.

You make a valid point. I had an older 60Hz 43" monitor some time ago, but found it a bit much... I was on a shorter desk then though, might be able to take it now. I know you generally DO get used to things over time. I've certainly found that with TV's... when I got my 65" I thought it was ridiculously big, but now when I see 55" in someone's lounge it feels tiny lol! So I get your point.

My bigger concern with OLED is the burn-in issue, given the time I spend in front of my PC in apps that have a lot of fixed windows... Photoshop, video editing, word apps etc. OK, one could argue that moving them around periodically would be a solution, but I don't like thinking I have to worry about something like that. Gaming is the least of my concerns as I wouldn't be doing that for 5-6 hours a day anyway.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,132
How large of a monitor have you personally used for any length of time? I ask because I used to think the same thing, but in practice anything up to 48" really isn't as insane as I believe you're making it out to be. Of course part of that is one's personal preferences and tolerances, but I remember way back when the Westinghouse 37" 1080p monitor was all the rage. There was a huge thread here that was dedicated to it because it was one of the only displays in that size range that was built as a monitor. After using the Dell 30" displays, which felt huge at one time, the 37" initially felt massive but it was perfectly usable.

Fast forward years later when 1080p wasn't cutting it for most [H] users anymore and many of us began using 1440p displays (both 2560x1440 and 3840x1440, as by this time 2560x1600 had fallen by the wayside). I went from a 34" ultrawide to a 40" 4K Samsung and again, it felt huge at first. Again, there was another huge thread on them because they were the first 4K TVs that did 4:4:4 perfectly and had decent input lag numbers. Many people in that thread were opting for the 48" and 55" models and kept talking about how awesome they were for gaming. When the quantum dot series came out, Samsung didn't make a 40" and the smallest size offered was a 48", so I had to get that one. I'm sure you can guess what happened. :) Initially it was like OMG but I ended up using that TV for a couple of years and it was fine.

Then the same thing happened again with the LG OLEDs, with 55" being the smallest size offered, and I'll admit it's huge and probably too large for most people at a typical viewing distance but I circumvent that by not running apps full screen and instead resizing them to roughly what a 40-43" monitor would be. I find text to be fine on it; it's not as if I'm like "Holy cow text is horrible on this thing and I only put up with it because I have to!" I understand it's not an ideal PPI for many people, but the sharpness is fine using it 8+ hours a day. Gaming is pretty damn awesome as it's like gaming on an IMAX but I've said before that if/when they release a 48" with all of the new gaming features I'll be one of the first to buy it because I do think that is a better size for a monitor. Point is though, plenty of us have used or are using 48-55" at desktop distances and it's perfectly doable.

All this to say that unless/until you actually use one of these for any length of time, it's perfectly understandable why you would think that something like a 48" is way too big. It is, until it isn't anymore. :) They do seem massive at first, but that feeling lessens over time to some degree. I'm not even arguing that 43" wouldn't be an ideal size, but as you've said we can forget about even entertaining the thought of an OLED that size for the time being.
How far away do you sit from your 55" oled?

I'm trying to plan out how to place my other monitors on the sides. I normally sit a little over 2 ft away from my 27" monitor.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
11,267
I still stand by what the ppi is as well as the distances. If my vision was weakened I'd wear glasses not get a lower ppi monitor.
What you said doesn't seem consistent, or you are ignoring the distance parameter.

... look similar to the ppi of a 2560x1440 27" at the typical 1.5' to 2' away.
That is actually effective worse pixelation than what I use/suggest. I am using 94 PPI at ~32-36", which is right on the edge of "Retina" performance (36").

2560x1440 27" is "Retina" at 32". Sitting 1.5' to 2' (18-24") away is too close and you would easily see the pixels.

IMO the ideal is where there pixels dissapear, but fonts are still large enough to need no scaling, that is right around "Retina" distance.

Much closer than that, and you see pixels easily. Much farther, and fonts are too small needing scaling (mess on Windows).
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,928
How far away do you sit from your 55" oled?

I'm trying to plan out how to place my other monitors on the sides. I normally sit a little over 2 ft away from my 27" monitor.
Typical distance...2.5' or so. You can easily see the edges of the display at that distance just by moving your eyes and not turning your head, but I really can't imagine putting monitors of any real size in a horizontal orientation on each side of it without being able to sit further back, unless you don't mind turning your head. At 2.5' away from a 55", viewing monitors to the left or right of it wouldn't be an insignificant angle since the 55" already takes up a good bit of horizontal space. Now, it may not be a dealbreaker for you but I'd definitely do some sort of mock setup first to see if it would work for you. The 55" panel is right at 48.5" from the left to right edge.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
Typical distance...2.5' or so. You can easily see the edges of the display at that distance just by moving your eyes and not turning your head, but I really can't imagine putting monitors of any real size in a horizontal orientation on each side of it without being able to sit further back, unless you don't mind turning your head. At 2.5' away from a 55", viewing monitors to the left or right of it wouldn't be an insignificant angle since the 55" already takes up a good bit of horizontal space. Now, it may not be a dealbreaker for you but I'd definitely do some sort of mock setup first to see if it would work for you. The 55" panel is right at 48.5" from the left to right edge.
I've tried this with my 60" TV and it felt like it would be pretty hard to get a comfortable height, without also having the display partially blocked(on the bottom) by a desk in front of it. But I'm pretty strict about keeping display height below eye level so I guess it just depends on how flexible you're willing to be. Not being able to mount it at desk height(since if you do that, the top of the display ends up way too high) creates a lot of problems for me.

I do think that 48" is MUCH more practical and likely small enough, so that's probably when I'll bite on desktop OLED.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
15,928
I've tried this with my 60" TV and it felt like it would be pretty hard to get a comfortable height, without also having the display partially blocked(on the bottom) by a desk in front of it. But I'm pretty strict about keeping display height below eye level so I guess it just depends on how flexible you're willing to be. Not being able to mount it at desk height(since if you do that, the top of the display ends up way too high) creates a lot of problems for me.

I do think that 48" is MUCH more practical and likely small enough, so that's probably when I'll bite on desktop OLED.
Yeah, after having owned both, 48" is the preferable size IMO. Like I said, a 55" isn't ideal, but it is doable. I'm willing to put up with it for the crazy good visual quality, but as soon as a 48" appears I will prefer to move back to that size. I don't mind looking upwards with my eyes when needed, but if I had to tilt my head backward to see the top that wouldn't be great. Thankfully between the fact that I resize application windows and move them to the lower portion of the screen, and the fact that your central point of focus in a lot of games isn't at the top edge of the screen, it's been fine.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,809
I wouldn't mind a whole small wall of monitor (at a reasonable distance) as long as I could run a game in a window for frame rate and huds/notifications, chat etc being visible, and of course run apps on the wall in various sized windows ... however I'd want it at 100 ppi or so effectively. 32inch 1440p even at 3' away is inadequate for text after using 108.8 ppi nearer for years and then 102.x ppi a bit farther at 3 feet or so on a very deep desk setup..

48inch is about the same ppi as a 32inch 1440p, slightly worse (91.79 / 93.24) . Sure it's usable like a 1080p monitor of low ppi still could be at normal desk distances but I would never choose it for desktop/apps/text. Right now I use a 32inch 1440p for games though, and a 43 inch 4k tv on each side of it for everything else. All three are 3 feet from the center of the screen surface to my eyeballs.

If I ever had to run a 55inch (22ppi less than 43 inch! ) to 65inch 4k screen, for example someday a tv with hdmi 2.1 120hz 4k VRR and high quality hdr off of a gpu capable of all of those features because nothing else smaller checked all of the boxes I'd have to move my desk back until my eyeballs were 4.5 to 5+ feet from the screen I'd guess for a 55inch, with the desk as it's own island and the monitor either on the wall, pole mounted from the cieling, or more likely on a TV pillar stand.

Occasionally I connect my laptop to my living room tv which is a 70 inch 4k, at about 8 feet away screen to eyeballs when sitting back directly across from it in the middle of my couch for comparison. That distance is for the room's media viewing and not specifically a distance i set up for pc desktop/app use. However it gives me another 4k screen size, ppi, and viewing distance to compare along with all of my others.
 
Last edited:

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,132
Typical distance...2.5' or so. You can easily see the edges of the display at that distance just by moving your eyes and not turning your head, but I really can't imagine putting monitors of any real size in a horizontal orientation on each side of it without being able to sit further back, unless you don't mind turning your head. At 2.5' away from a 55", viewing monitors to the left or right of it wouldn't be an insignificant angle since the 55" already takes up a good bit of horizontal space. Now, it may not be a dealbreaker for you but I'd definitely do some sort of mock setup first to see if it would work for you. The 55" panel is right at 48.5" from the left to right edge.
Thanks that's good to know. I have a custom made desk big enough for it and already turn my head while using the side screens.

My desk is 6' long so it leaves me a foot on each side. I have clamp mounts I'll use and the side monitors will hang out further than the desk a bit.
 

Arioch

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
453
I am going to be about 8 feet away from my 65" - can't wait to be immersed!
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,472
Lol while everyone is pondering so hard about how to make use of 55 inches as a desktop monitor here I am just using mine purely as a gaming TV at TV distances :smuggrin:. Geez guys just get a secondary monitor to use for your desktop needs, something like 32" 4k.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,809
yeah I have a 43" 4k on each side of my gaming monitor at 3' viewing distance or so for desktop/app/media use. My middle monitor is primarily for gaming - because it's ppi is way too low at 93.24ppi.

I can see 40 - 50% of the nearest sides of the 43" screens without moving my head much. In order to see the other half of the screen I have to turn to focus on that monitor but I like it that way. I sometimes have a grid of 4 windows open on the left monitor with the top and bottom nearest ones visible without turning my gaze to that monitor. My chat apps and music playlist are often nearest on the right monitor, with a large portion of the rest of it as a browser window or a media playback window. I have hotkeys set to buttons in order to move an active window where I want it and at what size/aspect on the fly. It's very easy to deal out and shuffle window panes that way at any time.

If I got a 43" 4k to replace the 32" 1440p gaming monitor in the middle, I'd have to move back a bit more than the 3' or so I am now though since it would push the side monitors away 5" each side. At that point I may have to scale the text a bit globally for the smallest default menu text.
 
Last edited:
Top