MSI QD-OLED Monitors 2024

That was the case with the AW3423DW too so I thought it was normal.
 
SoCali said:
That was the case with the AW3423DW too so I thought it was normal.
Click to expand...

Wow I never saw widespread calling out of the Alienware. This is definitely abnormal because the ABL graph says the monitor should still do 264 nits full field.

1709971429868.png


There is absolutely no way in hell it's doing 264 nits full field white lmao. The TB400 mode yes but the Peak1000 is definitely NOT following this graph at all which means it's doing pattern detection to generate these numbers.
 
Yeah the thing is these static test slide measurements are irrelevant. In real content the monitors behave completely different. My AW3423DW was overall more dim in HDR1000 mode vs HDR400 mode because of far more aggressive ABL so the choice of which mode to use would be completely dependent on game. The same is true for this MSI. Its one of the big advantages of WOLED vs QD-OLED that nobody really talks about.

I mean think about it, if the monitor can peak at 1000nits, why is that not just the default mode? Mainly because it means the monitor will no longer pass HDR400 True Black certification since it requires 250nits full field.

EDIT: The Asus is the worst offender out of the bunch - 230nits in real content that he claims is an outlier but knowing Asus its working as intended:


View: https://youtu.be/qywLwR7KT9M?si=HuSYN0KHWzxSYggI&t=1575
 
Last edited:
tongshadow said:
What tools did you use?
Click to expand...

My eyeballs. You can literally watch ABL happening in real time just by resizing a white window, it dims as you increase window size far more aggressively in Peak1000 mode than TB400. People on reddit have already given examples of the more aggressive dimming in peak1000 mode as well.
 
This issue isn't by any means a dealbreaker to me though, the reviewers just need to actually start testing these displays more thoroughly with actual real world content instead of just running some numbers and calling it a day. I still love this display and now it's just that TB400 seems like the better choice for my use after using both modes.
 
The ABL in the peak 1000 mode has always been terrible in the past and continues to be terrible. When I had C2 and AW34 side by side I couldn't figure out why the AW was having constant ABL spasms and looking less bright than the C2 until I switched to the HDR400 mode where it still looked less bright but at least it wasn't constantly strobing depending on where you look or even a item drop on an ARPG.

I never experience that kind of ABL with WOLED. None of these monitor reviewers actually use these monitors. I fail to see the relevance test slides have now days, it is applicable to no real world content and manufacturers cheat it anyway.

Everyone should be measuring real scene across an assortment of content like that little snowman reviewer does.

That crazy ABL is why I don't really consider these HDR monitors. If your definition of HDR is cherry picking sub 10% APL content sure, beyond that it's just a SDR display.
 
Agreed. Test patterns are useless as every TV and monitor manufacturer games them for years.

Even the few English reviewers who claim to measure real scenes never actually show you what those real scenes are (ex. Monitors Unboxed) and/or they pick proprietary scenes that are not available to the public to verify their results (ex. rtings). The less popular non-English reviewers do a much better job properly testing HDR.
 
Ok so the monitor decided to turn itself off on me yet again. This is with the panel refresh setting set to "Auto". So what I think is happening is that it seems like I essentially "snoozed" the panel refresh 3 times and then once it hit the 16 hour mark, the monitor automatically forced a panel refresh to occur without even prompting me for it anymore. After I had initially set the panel refresh from "16 hour usage" back to "Auto", I would get the pop up notification every 4 hours, the first 3 times I was able to hit "Cancel" and my assumption is that it would automatically perform the panel refresh when the monitor goes into sleep mode because that's what it says it will do on the notification but apparently this doesn't seem to be the case, it's just stalling it until it's been 16 hours after which it will just force it to happen. So basically after 4 hours, you can "snooze" it 3 times then on the 4th time it will be 16 hours and you won't even get a notification or anything, the monitor will just turn itself off and force a panel refresh on you which really sucks when you are in the middle of a game. I asked around on reddit and the answer I got is that this does indeed seem to be the case with this monitor currently as the panel refresh is not working as intended, probably another bug. In order to actually initiate the panel refresh after 4 hours if you have hit "Cancel", apparently you need to physically turn the monitor off as it won't initiate when it goes into sleep mode. I will test this out later and see if it prevents my monitor from turning off on me after 16 hours use.
 
Yeah I think I mentioned that before. After 16h it is forced regardless. The 4h intervals are the only optional instances. Mine never did the refresh in standby even when I hit cancel at each 4h interval, it would only do it when forcibly prompted to do so at the 16h mark. Not once did I come back to the monitor after going to bed with it being turned off, which signifies it did a panel refresh in standby while I slept.

Its another reason I ditched it, not going to wait for MSI to fix that because its super annoying and just demonstrates incompetence on their part.
 
SoCali said:
Yeah I think I mentioned that before. After 16h it is forced regardless. The 4h intervals are the only optional instances. Mine never did the refresh in standby even when I hit cancel at each 4h interval, it would only do it when forcibly prompted to do so at the 16h mark. Not once did I come back to the monitor after going to bed with it being turned off, which signifies it did a panel refresh in standby while I slept.

Its another reason I ditched it, not going to wait for MSI to fix that because its super annoying and just demonstrates incompetence on their part.
Click to expand...

As long as powering the monitor OFF after 4 hours of use actually initiates the panel refresh as reddit said then I suppose I can live with it as it would be the exact same thing as when I used my LG CX...I have to turn it on every time I want to use it, and have to turn it off every time I'm done so it's not really a dealbreaker, but man encountering more bugs with this thing is getting kind of annoying. I'm still within my return period so I'm on the hunt for the MPG model which can at least be fixed with firmware updates, but in addition to the bugs, the whole HDR brightness thing really has me wanting to try out the 32GS95UE to see if it has enough extra brightness to make HDR more enjoyable. RTings has actually noted in their latest Alienware review that Peak1000 isn't indeed always the brighter mode so I think this applies to every single QD OLED monitor:

1710362320313.png


Anyways if powering the monitor OFF after 4 hours of usage does not kick in panel refresh then I am 100% returning it because there is no way in hell I am going to MANUALLY initiate panel refresh every single god damn time.
 
So are these things ever going to be in stock? Its worse than when a new GPU launches.
 
LigTasm said:
So are these things ever going to be in stock? Its worse than when a new GPU launches.
Click to expand...

They are coming in stock. I see people posting about it every other day on the OLED reddit. You just have to have alerts setup for the time being to actually get anything because they sell out very fast, although you can just pre order the LG model right now without any hassle it seems.
 
MistaSparkul said:
They are coming in stock. I see people posting about it every other day on the OLED reddit. You just have to have alerts setup for the time being to actually get anything because they sell out very fast, although you can just pre order the LG model right now without any hassle it seems.
Click to expand...
That LG "new model markup" they put on every panel is a tough pill to swallow though.
 
I preordered a MPG321URX from B&H on Feb 1 and got it last week. No issues so far. I've been using a 42 C2 for the past year. I've always felt it was a little too big but now I'm having a hard time adjusting down to the 32" size. I do like the increased PPI though.
 
Doesn't the LG have that stupid coating? It looks terrible to my eyes when I saw it on their 48 inch monitor/tv thing.
 
MistaSparkul said:
All of them but #1 is borderline invisible.
Click to expand...

Looks like another advantage vs the Asus which tftcentral said crushed everything below box 6. Maybe the slight gamma curve dip they showed on this MSI was done on purpose to avoid the crushing. Hope they add a menu in the future to allow selecting alternate gamma curves - 2.2, 2.4, etc.
 
KickAssCop said:
Doesn't the LG have that stupid coating? It looks terrible to my eyes when I saw it on their 48 inch monitor/tv thing.
Click to expand...
Their TVs including the 48" have a glossy coating. They are only using the horrible matte AG coating on their monitors. I'm not sure if the "monitor" version of the 48" also uses the matte AG coating.
 
Armenius said:
Their TVs including the 48" have a glossy coating. They are only using the horrible matte AG coating on their monitors. I'm not sure if the "monitor" version of the 48" also uses the matte AG coating.
Click to expand...
LG 48 inch TV/Monitor thing had matte coating. 138 Hz one.
 
Ok it looks like powering the monitor off after getting 4 hour warning and hitting "Cancel" does initiate a pixel refresh. The power LED started blinking orange which means it's doing the refresh procedure. Oh well I guess this is livable as is since I'm not having to actually enter the OSD and manually start pixel refresh every time.
 
TFT Central tested HDR400 True Black and HDR1000 in full detail here:
https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/t...eak-1000-mode-brightness-on-new-oled-monitors

It turns out that... HDR400 TB produces a lower peaks at lower APL, like exactly as expected. The issue with HDR400 TB only happened on Windows desktop viewing and for SDR content, which isnt real HDR content.

Hopefully that has been a useful investigation in to these seemingly now common HDR modes on modern OLED monitors. To recap, if you’re viewing proper HDR content then the Peak 1000 mode should offer the optimal performance, having the same brightness as the True Black 400 mode generally, except also being able to push up to the higher peak luminance of the panel for the smallest APL’s and HDR highlights. We are making an assumption here by the way that both modes are well configured in terms of PQ tracking, colour temp and other measures. However, if you view SDR content within that HDR mode, including the Windows desktop, then Peak 1000 mode will look darker, and show more obvious shifts in brightness and more common dimming. This is another reason to only enable HDR mode when you are viewing actual HDR content we think.
Click to expand...

I'll admit the theory about monitors being able to somehow sense a benchmark pattern to "cheat" on actual brightness numbers, like the Dieselgate scandal, was very interesting.
 
Last edited:
It's not a theory. Neo G8 does it. 450nits 10% highlight in real content, 2000nits for a 10% slide.

Its pretty simple to implement and is literally just a screen area/content ABL algorithm.

I wish he'd actually play a game which is far more dynamic than a HDR video on youtube displaying a highlight for 4-5 seconds, he'd see how hair trigger the ABL is in the 1000 mode.
 
tongshadow said:
TFT Central tested HDR400 True Black and HDR1000 in full detail here:
https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/t...eak-1000-mode-brightness-on-new-oled-monitors

It turns out that... HDR400 TB produces a lower peaks at lower APL, like exactly as expected. The issue with HDR400 TB only happened on Windows desktop viewing and for SDR content, which isnt real HDR content.



I'll admit the theory about monitors being able to somehow sense a benchmark pattern to "cheat" on actual brightness numbers, like the Dieselgate scandal, was very interesting.
Click to expand...

He literally found instances where TB400 was brighter than Peak1000 which already proves that peak1000 is not brighter 100% of the time and they do not behave exactly the same.

1710447014388.png


Also, all his testing was done with video content and he says that gaming is a completely different story. From a gaming standpoint I've found peak1000 to be more inconsistent vs TB400. It's like having your frame rate fluctuate more but can reach higher maximums vs having a more stable frame rate by using an fps cap, I'd pick the more stable option.
 
Yeah those higher APL scenes are exactly where the HDR1000 mode dims significantly in comparison yet he just brushed it off. I don't really think that article provides any new insight.

I feel like he's become a QD-OLED salesman.
 
Good response on reddit as to why that article's testing is flawed:

"Hey u/TFTCentral, appreciate the effort that went into your investigation, but there are some significant flaws in your testing and conclusions.

[Noticeable ABL dimming] only seems to apply when using the screen with HDR mode enabled and then observing SDR content like the Windows desktop.
Click to expand...
First and foremost, there is no inherent difference in the signal between "SDR content" and "Real HDR content" within Windows' HDR mode. All are encoded within the same PQ signal, with SDR content simply being constrained within a certain range of the signal. Any inaccuracy that properly mapped SDR content may take on within HDR mode can and will manifest in "real" HDR content as well. Besides an existing tone curve mismatch (which has no effect on ABL), SDR content and the UI within Windows HDR are indeed properly mapped. It would be more realistic to think of "Real HDR content" as being an extension of existing "SDR content", given that you align paper white values with your Windows SDR content brightness (which you should be doing).

Next, we need to tackle what we're seeing with these peak-white measurements. First, when measuring a patch of "SDR white" in Windows, there is an absolute luminance value associated with the Windows content brightness value. In Windows, 100% content brightness correlates to a paper-white value of 480 nits, or a PQ signal of 67.2%, and that's essentially the test pattern that you're measuring in your article. This coincidentally happens to be about the same peak brightness of these QD-OLED panels in the TB400 mode, and that is why your testing found TB400 and P1000 to measure about the same brightness for this "SDR" pattern. This same signal level exists in HDR content, and you will measure the same luminance drop in HDR content that tries to emit 480 nits at similar APLs*.*

In fact, given your existing measurements of the display's peak-white values at different window sizes, it's entirely possible to predict the expected brightness of the display in different scenarios:

Peak 1% window10% window100% fullscreen
Peak 10001002 nits477 nits (-52%)268 nits (-73%)
TrueBlack 400487 nits479 nits (-1.6%)275 nits (-43%)
When ABL hits, the display's entire luminance range is proportionally dimmed down, not just the highlights. From 1% to 100% window size, we see that the P1000 mode dims down to almost a quarter of its target peak. This means that all the signal values in between, including the 480-nit Windows "SDR" signal, are also dimmed down by a similar amount, which is why we see it reduced down to 145 nits. Doing the same thing in the TB400 mode, we see a drop of ~56% from 1% window to fullscreen, which means the output of the 480-nit "SDR" signal should be around 270 nits, which is exactly what we're seeing, and why TB400 appears much brighter in this scenario. Of course, fullscreen brightness isn't a very practical scenario, but it applies to all other "APL" levels and explains the global dimming behavior that we see in the P1000 mode.

If we use the 10% window size, which is a more typical content scenario, we see that the P1000 mode dims the entire screen to about half its target brightness compared to <5% APL. I'm not including perceptual brightness here, but it's a significant drop-off nonetheless.

Given all this, the last thing we need to address is that the luminance drop that we see on OLEDs at larger window sizes is actually in response to the average display luminance, not solely pattern window size. The problem with performing EOTF tests with a static 10% pattern size is that this does not hold the average display luminance constant, and only measures the EOTF at a very low APL for all values below peak white. To conduct a proper test, the surround of your test patterns needs to be held at a constant value that simulates the average light level of most content, somewhere around 20nits. Many movies have scenes with average display luminances that can approach 100 nits or even higher, in which the P1000 mode would dim the entire screen to about 40% of the original. Bladerunner 2049, for example, is almost entirely below 200 nits, but contains many high-average luminance scenes that the P1000 mode severely dims. Using test patterns that held the average display luminance to 10% of its peak, the P1000 mode would have an EOTF that would look something like this, with all values dimmed to about half its target:


View: https://i.imgur.com/gBc0j4x.png

The above needs further emphasis since most of your test conclusions are based on measuring peak brightness values for the P1000 mode when that's not the issue -- it's all the other brightness values below it that make the P1000 mode fundamentally dimmer in many conditions, as the mode solely focuses on redistributing the entire power and brightness profile so that it can hit that 1000 nits in very limited scenarios. For now, I still strongly recommend sticking with the TrueBlack 400 mode."
 
Yeah that's super interesting. I'm really curious how the WOLED monitors fare in comparison. At this point I really don't care about measurements anymore, it's all about how much it impresses in person.
 
Wow the MAG version has been up on Amazon for like a day and still hasn't sold out. Nobody wants it lol.

I hope MSI finds a way to update firmware and does a 180 on their stance with it. Maybe it can be done through a DP cable.
 
SoCali said:
Wow the MAG version has been up on Amazon for like a day and still hasn't sold out. Nobody wants it lol.

I hope MSI finds a way to update firmware and does a 180 on their stance with it. Maybe it can be done through a DP cable.
Click to expand...
Well, knowing how bad some of these initial firmware releases have been, I'd be a bit nervous about buying one that can't be updated. Actually, more than a bit.
 
The MAG model is so dumb it should not even exist, nobody cares about saving a measely $50 over the MPG model and losing out on good features in exchange. This whole combination of MSI bugs, HDR peak1000 fiasco, and owning the MAG model makes me want to just return it and try out the GS95UE instead. Too bad my return period ends on the 27th and there is no way I would obtain a GS95UE by then so I wouldn't be able to do any direct side by side comparisons incase I end up disliking the LG just as much or maybe even more lol.
 
MistaSparkul said:
The MAG model is so dumb it should not even exist, nobody cares about saving a measely $50 over the MPG model and losing out on good features in exchange. This whole combination of MSI bugs, HDR peak1000 fiasco, and owning the MAG model makes me want to just return it and try out the GS95UE instead. Too bad my return period ends on the 27th and there is no way I would obtain a GS95UE by then so I wouldn't be able to do any direct side by side comparisons incase I end up disliking the LG just as much or maybe even more lol.
Click to expand...
You can go to BB in store and pay $50 for the first tier of total tech. They won't do it online but if you can ask a manager to make it retroactive for your MSI purchase. Gives you 60 day returns.
 
SoCali said:
You can go to BB in store and pay $50 for the first tier of total tech. They won't do it online but if you can ask a manager to make it retroactive for your MSI purchase. Gives you 60 day returns.
Click to expand...

Nice I'll try that once I'm off work.
 
Welp that didn't work, got told they can't add it to something I already bought lol. Although I didn't try escalating it to manager or anything I was just like meh fine then. Oh well I'm just going to end up upgrading to a PHOLED monitor in a few years anyway so I'll ride it out with this MSI, unless I discover even more bugs lol.
 
Techless coming in to prove that Peak1000 is indeed dimmer than TB400 on the Alienware model, although this probably applies to every QD OLED monitor:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNQJncYWGac

1710549983609.png


Peak1000 mode still has it's use cases, but nobody should be saying it is the the one and only "superior" choice because TB400 can look better at times, all just depends on the content which is kinda stupid, we should just have 1 solid HDR mode that looks good all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top