Aura89:

Many graphics cards. I never understand this question. Just because something is in 4K doesn't mean anyone is required to play the game in 4K at the highest settings, some people prefer higher resolution + high FPS over in-game graphics settings. It's a thing.

why go 4k if you dont want eye candy?

I have a 40'' 4k lg tv and I can play Far Cry 3 with a RX 570. See, I'm one of the lucky ones that does not require exactly 60fps. I can adjust my tv to go WQHD and get better fps , but i like ULTRA HD, as its finer you can turn down some options and still looks good. I haven't brought a game since FC3 😳 I do fancy that game Red Redemption 2. Oh Boy! I'm gonna need a better card than I got 😀:p;)

insp1re2600:

why go 4k if you dont want eye candy?

Why buy fast car you are not gonna be rally driver? There is tons of options and people who want to do things differently, maybe someone who wants 4k but not all settings maxed wants crisp and clean image without smokes and shadows looking 10% better with cost of 50% lower fps.

insp1re2600:

why go 4k if you dont want eye candy?

4k IS the eye candy! No other setting improves graphics as well the 4k setting. Some settings have greater perf impact than visual benefit and these can be turned down (esp AA). I have been doing this since my gtx1070 days. Have always found 4k with slightly reduced settings superior to maxed out on 1440p. This aside from the fact that most games (older, non-demanding) can be maxed out on 4k. To get full benefit from 4k though requires a decent size screen (40"+) so you can flesh out all the details properly.

@insp1re2600 just because you play a game at say 1080p/1440p doesnt change that the screen still has 4K res, which is needed for any screen past 32" anyway, or you will see pixels, at least when surfing/documents etc. also allows to fine tune fps and i can play old games like rivals @4K, and siege will still look good at 1440p with higher fps. just because a car has 500 HP or an F22 can go supersonic, doesnt mean they only get used at that level. but i rather spend 1000$ on something like the 49X90F. its FALD and has 120Hz turning off motion/image processing will reduce input lag to normal level, and darks will look better than on this. while saving 6-800$ can be spend on other upgrades.

double post

insp1re2600:

What can push 4k 144?

Probably Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. But forget about it when it comes to ray tracing 😉

Vipu2:

Why buy fast car you are not gonna be rally driver? There is tons of options and people who want to do things differently, maybe someone who wants 4k but not all settings maxed wants crisp and clean image without smokes and shadows looking 10% better with cost of 50% lower fps.

You also wouldn't buy a ferrari with a Ford Cortina engine either.

insp1re2600:

why go 4k if you dont want eye candy?

Difference of opinion in regards to eye candy. Eye candy is great, but higher resolution means, theoretically, you can see more, or don't have to use AA which can in itself blur the screen. Everyones opinions about what is or is not important in their games are simply not all the same.

Denial:

There are fundamental problems with both OLED and MicroLED that need to be solved before we use them in mass. Despite what LG claims OLED still has a burn-in issue and LG is probably the furthest along at solving it. MicroLED costs a metric ton to manufacture at scale. Both technologies have tons of money being thrown at them, so inevitably one will win out and become the next standard but sometimes throwing money at problems doesn't solve it. Just need to get lucky engineering breakthroughs.

yeah it has burn in, meanwhile LCD has; 1-awful blacks 2-blur 3-pale colors 4-worse contrast 5-uneven brightness 6-they all have mud coats now, cuz 50nit screens made people mad back in 2005, now apple gets praised for its amazing imac screens, no one seems to realize they are just glossy and bright af 7-lag 8-you can mostly fix one or two of the issues mentioned above, but only OLED fixes them all at once oh yes give me that sweet burn-in, im still trying to find it on my decade old phones, and its an egg-chicken problem with software and its static imagery potentially becoming an issue today, if OLED desktop marketshare was 20-30% it would be fixed in a week

EspHack:

yeah it has burn in, meanwhile LCD has; 1-awful blacks 2-blur 3-pale colors 4-worse contrast 5-uneven brightness 6-they all have mud coats now, cuz 50nit screens made people mad back in 2005, now apple gets praised for its amazing imac screens, no one seems to realize they are just glossy and bright af 7-lag 8-you can mostly fix one or two of the issues mentioned above, but only OLED fixes them all at once oh yes give me that sweet burn-in, im still trying to find it on my decade old phones, and its an egg-chicken problem with software and its static imagery potentially becoming an issue today, if OLED desktop marketshare was 20-30% it would be fixed in a week

You obviously have not seen a proper LCD within last 10 years.

@EspHack 1. has to do with the light control, not the screen itself, as lcd's dont emit any light. 2. what blur? motion? oleds have that too, as i demo videos that show without motion processing the oleds dont look better despite 120 Hz. 3. so 60 B colors (DV) is pale to you? 4. worse contrast? when i can have almost twice the brightness? ok 5. again, connected to the light source/control, not the lcd screen itself. 6. enough mat/semi mat screens out there, and oleds are usually glossy, so whats your point? 7 lag? comes from processing, if i do the same amount on the oled, it will have input lag as well. and there isnt really a "burn in" on oleds as there is nothing being burned in the first place. and unless the oleds change, you cant fix image retention, as its caused by the different colors degrading differently, not even talking about the fact that i've seen it on a not even 1 y old LG (running 12 h/day), same with customers, already have ppl asking what to do with a 1-3 y old tv that has IR.

This is IMO one of the best monitor right now if you want big screen, it has HDR1000, 4K/144, Freesync/Gsync compatible

alanm:

You obviously have not seen a proper LCD within last 10 years.

I seen enough and he is right on all accounts, I just had the 2500USD monitor for two weeks and sent it back due to everything listed and more, I been using OLED as my PC monitor since 2016 so when i got the LCD I imidietly seen all the negatives, even of the best PC monitor that money can buy right now iwth 513FALD zones, GSYNC ultimate, overdrive, all the latest tech is in this monitor ASUS PG35VQ.

no local dimming at this price is a joke. a tv for half that cost has it, and i gladly drop to 120 hz to have that, and even a 49" would be cheaper than this.

fry178:

@EspHack 1. has to do with the light control, not the screen itself, as lcd's dont emit any light. 2. what blur? motion? oleds have that too, as i demo videos that show without motion processing the oleds dont look better despite 120 Hz. 3. so 60 B colors (DV) is pale to you? 4. worse contrast? when i can have almost twice the brightness? ok 5. again, connected to the light source/control, not the lcd screen itself. 6. enough mat/semi mat screens out there, and oleds are usually glossy, so whats your point? 7 lag? comes from processing, if i do the same amount on the oled, it will have input lag as well. and there isnt really a "burn in" on oleds as there is nothing being burned in the first place. and unless the oleds change, you cant fix image retention, as its caused by the different colors degrading differently, not even talking about the fact that i've seen it on a not even 1 y old LG (running 12 h/day), same with customers, already have ppl asking what to do with a 1-3 y old tv that has IR.

LCD have horrible pixel response, OLED has instantaneous, so the blur comes from that, just spin a character in any game around, even with maximum overdriver You can have ten times the brightness but your "black" is more gray then black and that changes everything, black is basic color and its part of almost every composition, OLED has infinite black so contrast is on different level, OLED without HDR looks better then most LCD with HDR on. LCD is pale because its LCD, because of the back light that either always on or has few zones, its affects the image quality, also OLED has stronger color POP due to technology and the way OLED works Uneven brightness is the due to LCD, you cant light up individual, so it is what it is, there is no alternative OLED wins in every parameter except maximum brightness and even this only for now, I seen screenshots of LG conference and by 2022 the OLED will get double brightness compared to 2019, on 2020 it will start gradually increasing, then 2021 and on 2022 it will be exactly double Also right now OLED has 15000 hours of endurance/lifespan, on 2022 it will double to 30000 Also they doing something new with pixes arrangement and it will increase the color gamut to 90% Rec. 2020 and next year 48inch coming so that will be great PC monitor, i been using C6p 55inc since 2016 as my PC monitor, got C9 as replacement because they added GSYNC and maybe ill get next upgrade in 2022. I have lots of experience with OLED

fry178:

no local dimming at this price is a joke. a tv for half that cost has it, and i gladly drop to 120 hz to have that, and even a 49" would be cheaper than this.

You get HDR 1000Nits. Local dimming on PC, comes in 2500USD 21:9 35inch ASUS PG35VQ and ACER X35 monitor, has 512 zones and 1000nits and gsync ultimate

@ MegaFalloutFan, you must have been comparing the crappiest LCDs on the market vs your OLED. No question OLED wins out, but not that dramatically on blacks (VA panels), contrast (VA panels) as there are diminishing returns beyond certain points. Infinite contrast does not mean infinitely appreciable as you seem to be heading with your argument or that everything is infinitely better on OLED. Colors as well, good LCDs (quantum dots) can rival OLEDs. Just stop with your extreme differences approach between the two. Dont care how long you've had your OLEDs, you clearly have had the worst LCDs to compare to and are basically arguing by numbers on paper to make your points.

alanm:

@ MegaFalloutFan, you must have been comparing the crappiest LCDs on the market vs your OLED. No question OLED wins out, but not that dramatically on blacks (VA panels), contrast (VA panels) as there are diminishing returns beyond certain points. Infinite contrast does not mean infinitely appreciable as you seem to be heading with your argument or that everything is infinitely better on OLED. Colors as well, good LCDs (quantum dots) can rival OLEDs. Just stop with your extreme differences approach between the two. Dont care how long you've had your OLEDs, you clearly have had the worst LCDs to compare to and are basically arguing by numbers on paper to make your points.

Nothing to argue about, any reviewer [or new buyers comments on Amazon, OLED subReddit, online shops, almost everyone saying they wont get back to LCD after they got an OLED] going to tell you that LCD is inferior product, quantum dots or not, its bad all around. I never buy cheap products, my last comparison was 3 weeks ago vs ASUS PG35VQ, which i sent back.

Dont care about nits/hdr, what i had the past 15y on lcd monis was still to bright outside watching movies. For 2500$ i get a 75X950G or i can spend less than half and still get a bigger screen with similar specs but better colors/accuracy (49X900F). And having less zones and no gsync, is irrelevant to me, if it costs 1000$ more. LG oled, those blacks look worse than on most FALD screens from brands like sony/ssamsung/lg. https://www.bilder-hochladen.net/i/iyhi-1c-6def.jpg lcd on the left, oled on the right, great picture, if you could see something i guess. https://www.bilder-hochladen.net/i/iyhi-1d-855b.jpg i dont see oleds having the best picture.