LG to make a 42" OLED panel in 2021!

///AMG

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
3,586
I don't think it's worth the upgrade for just an increase in PPI but that's just my own opinion. Personally I'm going to upgrade only when the "OLED EVO" technology gets added to the 42" panel, I'm willing to buy a G series OLED if I must.
Im not buying it for ppi I’m buying it because the CX48 is a bit too big for me and the 42” would be a lot more comfortable.
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
350
I don't think it's worth the upgrade for just an increase in PPI but that's just my own opinion. Personally I'm going to upgrade only when the "OLED EVO" technology gets added to the 42" panel, I'm willing to buy a G series OLED if I must.

I may be in the same boat as you, but it depends on much better the "EVO" panels are. Id prefer to have a 42~48" OLED, but I'd take a better quality/brightness OLED anyday and stick again with a 55". If it's something dumb like ~50 NITS more then I'll pass, but if we're getting into the 1000 NIT range for those small windows, then I'll probably get the EVO (HDR 2~10% window peak is roughly 724-725 NITS per RTings for the LG48X). I'm actually more concerned for the 25~100% windows, as this is more real-world and noticeable in my opinion than having some blinding candle light or whatnot, especially with bright scenes such as snow or daylight in games.

HDR.JPG
 
Last edited:

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
914
I'm gonna hold out for better GPUs, even a 3090 is gonna have trouble pushing 120hz 4k at high settings for many games.
I'll let the gsync module to pick up the slack for the time being until we have the next gen capability.
Though if they can get them listed for $999 they're gonna sell like hot cakes.
So play at 60 FPS at 4K. Picture quality is more important than frame rate to me.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
914
We don’t need to make every thread about 60hz vs. higher - does it make a difference, will it matter to me etc..
However we can say that oled has the best 60hz performance possible from a current sample and hold display, which is to say that it will be noticeably better than say the average 60hz VA panel when scrolling a web page or playing a game with a dark background- i.e. no smear or leading/ trailing edges or overdrive artifacts. The motion smoothness and motion resolution will not be as good as a decent 120+hz IPS panel in motion in games though. You can evaluate that for your own needs without trying to make broad statements like “60hz sucks” or “nobody can see 144hz”. Decide for yourself.
IPS panels have terrible picture quality though. IPS glow, poor contrast, gray blacks, much less vibrant colors. I don't understand why monitor manufacturers keep advertising "IPS" as a feature.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
914
I would personally take a IPS 1000:1 contrast ratio and BLB over VA smearing or TN viewing angles, but IPS still aint good.
Games looked much better on my quantum dot VA television than on my IPS gaming monitor. I just want monitors that look as good.
 

t1337duder

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
205
Sweet. I've been eye-ing the LG 48" CX for my desktop PC, since I've been enjoying my 77" CX on my HTPC. Honestly 48" is too big for the desk I'd put it on. 42" seems ideal.
I keep hearing > 60hz doesn’t matter on a OLED because if the way they process motion. Haven’t had the chance to experience truth or not.
It definitely matters. It reduces the latency and the smoothness of the motion is visually pleasing. Having said that, switching between a solid 60 FPS and 120 FPS isn't the same deal as what people experience the difference to be on LCD screens. OLED's already have really good motion clarity - like Plasma televisions. In a few games with motion blur, I've managed to actually trick myself into thinking I was playing at 120Hz when I was actually at 60Hz (I'd forget to change the refresh rate in the game's options).

I'm gonna hold out for better GPUs, even a 3090 is gonna have trouble pushing 120hz 4k at high settings for many games.
The 3090 plays most games released at 4k 120FPs. For the games it can't do at solid 120FPS, it can certainly do at >60FPS. The games it doesn't get >60FPS average in are extremely few and far between. We're talking a very short list.

What's the logic anyways? Because a developer releases an unoptimized game somewhere, you can't enjoy a videocard because it doesn't run every new game at a locked 120FPS at max settings? You are aware that when those faster GPU's are released, new games will come out and you won't be pushing 120 in every game with those GPU's, right?
 
Last edited:

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,403
idk what this thread has to do with LCD panel types, but in more important news: LG didn't announce a 42" TV in the lineup yet, not clear if there will be products using this panel released in late 2021 or not.
this is what I am wondering about. It almost seemed like they just announced an ability to make a 42 inch tv, but I wonder if they will actually sell one, or make available to other manufactures to be sold.
 

Necere

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
2,766
this is what I am wondering about. It almost seemed like they just announced an ability to make a 42 inch tv, but I wonder if they will actually sell one, or make available to other manufactures to be sold.
I half suspect they'll reserve them for ASUS or Alienware to sell as an overpriced gaming monitor for the first year or two.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,320
I half suspect they'll reserve them for ASUS or Alienware to sell as an overpriced gaming monitor for the first year or two.

Right, a 48 inch shrink down from 55 inches was still easy to sell for smaller houses, and hardcore couch gamers, but 40" is dropping down into dedicated monitor territory, and needs that sort of high-end gaming OEM treatment.

The only way anyone sells TVs that small is by charging a few hundred dollars for them, but if there is enough demand, LG could introduce a 40" TV for under $700 sometime in the future!.
 
Last edited:

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
I’m more interested in the 20-30 panel. If there’s a 27” OLED for $500, even if it’s just QHD and 60hz, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,414
Right, a 48 inch shrink down from 55 inches was still easy to sell for smaller houses, and hardcore couch gamers, but 40" is dropping down into dedicated monitor territory, and needs that sort of high-end gaming OEM treatment.

The only way anyone sells TVs that small is by charging a few hundred dollars for them, but if there is enough demand, LG could introduce a 40" TV for under $700 sometime in the future!.
I would assume that instead of ASUS, Acer or AW it will be exclusive to LG's own display division.

I would actually welcome if it was treated as a monitor because that would mean they could offer it with Displayport and USB-C ports for better compatibility and PbP mode for making use of its larger size. Similar feature set to their previous 43" 4K LCD models but with HDMI 2.1 ports.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
I’m more interested in the 20-30 panel. If there’s a 27” OLED for $500, even if it’s just QHD and 60hz, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.
There is no such panel -- just a vague promise of starting to expand the lineup in that direction. Most likely no product until 2023 at the earliest. The 42" panel is actually going into production later this year, we just don't know how it is to be used.

The 31.5" 60hz LG OLED monitor is a professional product using a JOLED panel, not an LG one, and given the last JOLED monitor was $4000 and 22", I would be utterly shocked if this one comes in under $5000.

$500 OLEDs aren't going to be a thing for many years.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,109
I'm gonna hold out for better GPUs, even a 3090 is gonna have trouble pushing 120hz 4k at high settings for many games.
I'll let the gsync module to pick up the slack for the time being until we have the next gen capability.
Though if they can get them listed for $999 they're gonna sell like hot cakes.
Why do you feel G-SYNC is a "stopgap" until fixed 120 FPS?
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,403
I’m more interested in the 20-30 panel. If there’s a 27” OLED for $500, even if it’s just QHD and 60hz, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.
maybe 5 years from now, but I don't think we'll see that any time soon. I think you will see cheaper OLED tvs however. The LG A series is suppose to be cheaper, my guess is starting under $999, but I think it is limited to 60Hz and doesn't have HDMI 2.1
 

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
maybe 5 years from now, but I don't think we'll see that any time soon. I think you will see cheaper OLED tvs however. The LG A series is suppose to be cheaper, my guess is starting under $999, but I think it is limited to 60Hz and doesn't have HDMI 2.1
5 years from now is an exaggeration. With QNED and Mini/MicroLED or combinations of these things coming up, 2023 at the latest, that's 2 years away. LG is realizing that good enough technology that brings many of OLED's benefits is coming, so they would be stupid to wait too long and miss that market option. From the news release:

"It also plans to significantly expand its mid-range TV display lineup down to the 20-30-inch range, enhancing not only TV, but also gaming, mobility, and personal display options."

A 20" or 30" display would be weird AF. TVs come in 32", TVs in 24". Granted, they do say TV and not monitor. Either way, how much could they charge for that small an OLED? Any more than $750 and that product is toast (again, we're thinking end of 2021, QNED will already be available in market to some degree by then). Especially if it's 60hz... can't charge more than hat I mentioned, it would just not be worth the money when there's many other good or better options for the price.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,414
5 years from now is an exaggeration. With QNED and Mini/MicroLED or combinations of these things coming up, 2023 at the latest, that's 2 years away. LG is realizing that good enough technology that brings many of OLED's benefits is coming, so they would be stupid to wait too long and miss that market option. From the news release:

"It also plans to significantly expand its mid-range TV display lineup down to the 20-30-inch range, enhancing not only TV, but also gaming, mobility, and personal display options."

A 20" or 30" display would be weird AF. TVs come in 32", TVs in 24". Granted, they do say TV and not monitor. Either way, how much could they charge for that small an OLED? Any more than $750 and that product is toast (again, we're thinking end of 2021, QNED will already be available in market to some degree by then). Especially if it's 60hz... can't charge more than hat I mentioned, it would just not be worth the money when there's many other good or better options for the price.

LG is mainly aiming at the higher end market because that's where the money is. Office monitor sector is too swamped by cheap Chinese LCD panels which is why LG got out of that game. They can easily sell say a 27-32" OLED for gamers at well over $1000 because it's by definition a lot of things FALD LCDs are not.

Micro-LED is in no condition for being cheap enough for mass market products and needs manufacturing breakthroughs to happen. I would expect in 5+ years we may see it in large TVs. Samsung's QNED will most likely be a stopgap product before then.

Most likely reason for LG to be able to venture into smaller models now is that their new Guangzhou OLED factory is now fully operational and allows for the economy of scale and production methods to make things happen. They were already selling all the OLED TV panels they were making either in their own TVs or ones from Sony and Philips.

It's always worth reminding how slow the display industry moves. I bought a 1440p 144 Hz G-Sync TN panel gaming monitor in 2014. The only thing that has changed coming to this year is that the same performance is now available in low contrast ratio IPS panels.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,320
LG is mainly aiming at the higher end market because that's where the money is. Office monitor sector is too swamped by cheap Chinese LCD panels which is why LG got out of that game. They can easily sell say a 27-32" OLED for gamers at well over $1000 because it's by definition a lot of things FALD LCDs are not.

Micro-LED is in no condition for being cheap enough for mass market products and needs manufacturing breakthroughs to happen. I would expect in 5+ years we may see it in large TVs. Samsung's QNED will most likely be a stopgap product before then.

Most likely reason for LG to be able to venture into smaller models now is that their new Guangzhou OLED factory is now fully operational and allows for the economy of scale and production methods to make things happen. They were already selling all the OLED TV panels they were making either in their own TVs or ones from Sony and Philips.

It's always worth reminding how slow the display industry moves. I bought a 1440p 144 Hz G-Sync TN panel gaming monitor in 2014. The only thing that has changed coming to this year is that the same performance is now available in low contrast ratio IPS panels.
Exactly.

Most mainstream mini-led backlights have barely 2000 dimming zones (Up from AROUND 200 ZONES FIVE YEARS AGO). That 2000 dimming zones is equivalent to a 50x50 OLED panel (worthless to increase the dynamic contrast of LCD).

You really need something closer to 200,000 dimming zones, which is equivalent to 500*500 OLED panel. Each order-of-magnitude (10x) for mini-led dimming zones has taken five years, so expect a minimum of ten for displays to stop having blocky addressable back-lights

By contrast, OLED has increased at a rate quadrupling it's pixel density every four years; since it's also a moving target, it's going to take an additional ten years (20 total) for Mini to exceed it!

MicroLED will always be pure fantasy (it's density is increasing even slower than OLED)
 

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,851
Exactly.

Most mainstream mini-led backlights have barely 2000 dimming zones (Up from AROUND 200 ZONES FIVE YEARS AGO). That 2000 dimming zones is equivalent to a 50x50 OLED panel (worthless to increase the dynamic contrast of LCD).

You really need something closer to 200,000 dimming zones, which is equivalent to 500*500 OLED panel. Each order-of-magnitude (10x) for mini-led dimming zones has taken five years, so expect a minimum of ten for displays to stop having blocky addressable back-lights

By contrast, OLED has increased at a rate quadrupling it's pixel density every four years; since it's also a moving target, it's going to take an additional ten years (20 total) for Mini to exceed it!

MicroLED will always be pure fantasy (it's density is increasing even slower than OLED)

OLED's only real drawback of lower peak brightness is soon going to get eliminated starting with the new brighter OLED EVO panels and through the use of giant heatsinks implemented by Sony and Panasonic. Combing both technologies (OLED EVO panel with a giant heatsink strapped to it) could certainly produce an OLED capable of over 1000 nits peak brightness and greater color volume than before and at that point I wouldn't even care about MicroLED anymore. Burn never was and never will be a concern for me so with the brightness disadvantage of OLED gone I will just happily use them and forget about the pipedream called MicroLED.
 

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
Sure, there are many benefits OLED would still have over other technologies, I never said anything to the contrary. However, I don't understand who would buy a $1000 27" OLED monitor, when you can get a 55" for $1300. It just does not make any economic sense whatsoever. I don't see how they could price it at anything over $750 - when 144hz 27" monitors are ~$350 and 32" ones ~$500 - without destroying the value of the product in comparison to their other offers in the lineup.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
Sure, there are many benefits OLED would still have over other technologies, I never said anything to the contrary. However, I don't understand who would buy a $1000 27" OLED monitor, when you can get a 55" for $1300. It just does not make any economic sense whatsoever. I don't see how they could price it at anything over $750 - when 144hz 27" monitors are ~$350 and 32" ones ~$500 - without destroying the value of the product in comparison to their other offers in the lineup.
Many people would. 27" easily fits on any existing desk setup, 55" requires moving furniture around and coming up with a mounting system if you even have space for it -- which many don't.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
960
I think all that gaming LCD need is affordable 3000 fast FALD zones display to stop thinking about OLEDs. Halos will be minimal non-disturbing with 3000 zones. They are almost bearable with 1152 zones, with 3000 I think it will be just right for overall experience including the price. As the more zones the higher the price...
And the industry shouldn't change for it, no need for technological revolution. The production can start today, a company just have to start producing such displays in large volumes to keep the prices down. They already can make the 1152 zones fald monitors, just a little tweak to up it to 3000+ and we good.
 

frisbfreek

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
94
I don't understand who would buy a $1000 27" OLED monitor, when you can get a 55" for $1300. It just does not make any economic sense whatsoever.
When one lives in a small apartment where each square foot is another $50-100/year in rent, that 27" vs. 55" difference will indeed be economic.

But yes, in general I agree that monitor prices are not commensurate with the sizing, especially relative to TVs.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,414
Sure, there are many benefits OLED would still have over other technologies, I never said anything to the contrary. However, I don't understand who would buy a $1000 27" OLED monitor, when you can get a 55" for $1300. It just does not make any economic sense whatsoever. I don't see how they could price it at anything over $750 - when 144hz 27" monitors are ~$350 and 32" ones ~$500 - without destroying the value of the product in comparison to their other offers in the lineup.
Every new OLED thread is filled with people saying "I wish they made a 27 or 32 inch model". Most don't want to put a 55" OLED on their desk and figure out how to make it work. For me the 48" model was just within reason and if the upcoming 42" model was available at the time, I would have bought that.

Even for LCDs you are looking at the bottom of the barrel stuff there. The Samsung G7 is very popular and that's ~$700 for the 32" model. You are very much underestimating what higher end gaming monitors cost and where the far superior OLED fits in that regard and what people are willing to pay for one.
 

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
You are very much underestimating what higher end gaming monitors cost and where the far superior OLED fits in that regard and what people are willing to pay for one.
Huh. Then I guess I’ll let everyone else beta test them while I remain in lcd for a few more years!
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,983
Since Sony makes OLED tvs (and the PS5) they would seem like a natural fit for the 42” gamer focused monitor/ TV with PS5 co-branding.
If I remember they sold PS3 (or was it PS4?) TVs that were smallish and 1080p.
Samsung also dabbled in the ~30” TV/monitor space years ago - I bought one as a gift. Time to revisit this space I say.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,109
Since Sony makes OLED tvs (and the PS5) they would seem like a natural fit for the 42” gamer focused monitor/ TV with PS5 co-branding.
If I remember they sold PS3 (or was it PS4?) TVs that were smallish and 1080p.
Samsung also dabbled in the ~30” TV/monitor space years ago - I bought one as a gift. Time to revisit this space I say.
Sony sources their OLED panels from LG.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
602
Every new OLED thread is filled with people saying "I wish they made a 27 or 32 inch model". Most don't want to put a 55" OLED on their desk and figure out how to make it work. For me the 48" model was just within reason and if the upcoming 42" model was available at the time, I would have bought that.

Even for LCDs you are looking at the bottom of the barrel stuff there. The Samsung G7 is very popular and that's ~$700 for the 32" model. You are very much underestimating what higher end gaming monitors cost and where the far superior OLED fits in that regard and what people are willing to pay for one.
The problem with Gaming monitors is that they don't sell in numbers like LG's OLED TVs. Because of that, the monitors cost a lot for what they offer compared to LG's OLEDs. That's what makes the CX such a great "value" compared to monitors at the moment; LG sells a ton of them, and thus, they can sell them at a lower price due to the scale of production. The fact that the CX has so many gaming-focused features just makes them a near perfect all around display... except for their massive size, of course.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
914
The problem with Gaming monitors is that they don't sell in numbers like LG's OLED TVs. Because of that, the monitors cost a lot for what they offer compared to LG's OLEDs. That's what makes the CX such a great "value" compared to monitors at the moment; LG sells a ton of them, and thus, they can sell them at a lower price due to the scale of production. The fact that the CX has so many gaming-focused features just makes them a near perfect all around display... except for their massive size, of course.
And burn in.
 

realworld

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
347
I think all that gaming LCD need is affordable 3000 fast FALD zones display to stop thinking about OLEDs. Halos will be minimal non-disturbing with 3000 zones. They are almost bearable with 1152 zones, with 3000 I think it will be just right for overall experience including the price. As the more zones the higher the price...
And the industry shouldn't change for it, no need for technological revolution. The production can start today, a company just have to start producing such displays in large volumes to keep the prices down. They already can make the 1152 zones fald monitors, just a little tweak to up it to 3000+ and we good.
More dimming zones require more processing work on the display which results in higher input lag. There is a reason why game mode on modern TVs neuters or completely turns off local dimming to maintain an acceptable level of input lag. FALD and its evolved form Mini LED are clearly not the answer for gaming... maybe dual layer LCD that can naturally improve contrast without the use of post local dimming effect.
 

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,414
The problem with Gaming monitors is that they don't sell in numbers like LG's OLED TVs. Because of that, the monitors cost a lot for what they offer compared to LG's OLEDs. That's what makes the CX such a great "value" compared to monitors at the moment; LG sells a ton of them, and thus, they can sell them at a lower price due to the scale of production. The fact that the CX has so many gaming-focused features just makes them a near perfect all around display... except for their massive size, of course.
For sure. That might make LG try to sell the 42" model as a monitor instead. They already have a couple of 43" monitors so they could probably repurpose a good chunk of that hardware and software as is and just make it work with the OLED and hopefully pile on some of the gaming features on top.

Their 43UN700 has a lot of things that I would like on my CX 48", namely 4-way Picture by Picture mode, PiP, USB-C with power delivery, DisplayPort. Ideally a 42" OLED monitor version of that would also include things like low input lag, 120 Hz refresh rate and BFI as well as the per input picture presets the TVs have.
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,352
Sweet! I just hope LG does not pull Samsung and nerf the smaller versions of their mid-high end TV's by making them 60hz only. Got to sell those shitty overpriced gaming computer monitors somehow I guess. 🤦‍♂️
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,983
Sony sources their OLED panels from LG.
That was my point - Sony should announce their 42” oled model since they already have LG as a panel supplier (but this announcement didn’t happen at CES which is a bad sign for a 2021 model from Sony.)
Sweet! I just hope LG does not pull Samsung and nerf the smaller versions of their mid-high end TV's by making them 60hz only. Got to sell those shitty overpriced gaming computer monitors somehow I guess. 🤦‍♂️
Those nerfed 42” Samsung TVs are usually not Samsung panels - they are sourced from Chinese mfg. on older panels and drivers hence the nerfed specs.
LG has not sourced OLED panels from anyone other than JOLED so hopefully these smaller TVs are still LG panels - if so they are likely to keep identical specs for simplicity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaZa
like this

kasakka

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
2,414
Since Sony makes OLED tvs (and the PS5) they would seem like a natural fit for the 42” gamer focused monitor/ TV with PS5 co-branding.
If I remember they sold PS3 (or was it PS4?) TVs that were smallish and 1080p.
Samsung also dabbled in the ~30” TV/monitor space years ago - I bought one as a gift. Time to revisit this space I say.
Sony could not figure out how to even make LCDs to go together with the PS5 release. Their divisions are clearly not working together and they still don't even have working VRR support on some of their TVs. Sony OLEDs have also been generally a worse choice for gaming than LG.
 

hhkb

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
133
Sweet. I've been eye-ing the LG 48" CX for my desktop PC, since I've been enjoying my 77" CX on my HTPC. Honestly 48" is too big for the desk I'd put it on. 42" seems ideal.

It definitely matters. It reduces the latency and the smoothness of the motion is visually pleasing. Having said that, switching between a solid 60 FPS and 120 FPS isn't the same deal as what people experience the difference to be on LCD screens. OLED's already have really good motion clarity - like Plasma televisions. In a few games with motion blur, I've managed to actually trick myself into thinking I was playing at 120Hz when I was actually at 60Hz (I'd forget to change the refresh rate in the game's options).


The 3090 plays most games released at 4k 120FPs. For the games it can't do at solid 120FPS, it can certainly do at >60FPS. The games it doesn't get >60FPS average in are extremely few and far between. We're talking a very short list.

What's the logic anyways? Because a developer releases an unoptimized game somewhere, you can't enjoy a videocard because it doesn't run every new game at a locked 120FPS at max settings? You are aware that when those faster GPU's are released, new games will come out and you won't be pushing 120 in every game with those GPU's, right?

Yeah I was pretty amazed by this. I played Control with maxed out settings, high ray tracing + DLSS on my 3080/LG CX. I didn't have the FPS counter enabled, and I couldn't even tell what FPS I was running at. It just felt smooth on the CX and completely playable, which I was blown away with on maxed settings. After a while I put my FPS counter on to see, and I was getting 55-70 FPS pretty consistently, which surprised me because on LCD that would feel so clunky.
 

Murzilka

Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
960
Yeah, 60hz on OLED feels like 75hz on an LCD.

LCD really shines when it has hardware g-sync and runs at (not necessarily hitting it all the time) 144hz refresh rate and has the latest 38" LG panel - this is much clearer than OLED at 120hz without any VRR. Can't compare the OLED VRR because I haven't bought one yet.
 
Top