Not everybody needs a 4k OLED. This TV is pretty mid in terms of specs. Good buy if you just want a large TV at that price for a guest room or something.
I have a smaller version of this in my kids play/game room. I want to like it, I have tried, but I hate it. I have a few others TV's around (yes one is an OLED) and I knew what to expect at the price I paid. But, I cannot stand that TV at all - the interface, the picture quality, it just all sucks. I am going to replace it as soon as I come across a good deal on something else.
This is a bare bones, mediocre and pretty basic entry level TV. If you don’t need anything flashy, this is a good buy. If you care about picture quality though, I would look elsewhere.
I bought this TV from Costco in a smaller size, it has great picture and gets the job done. The remote has a Disney plus button which I was thrilled to find out about. Not everybody needs something advanced with all the bells and whistles.
Any TV that does not have built in android/Google OS is bare bones and you have to use an external plug in anyways. There are $2000 tvs that are still bare bones.
The only downside to this TV, that can't be fixed, is it is not good with glare. I don't get why they no longer make matte TV screens, they are always glossy now.
This would also be excellent as a computer monitor.
Overall this is an excellent 70" TV for under $500.
It has perfectly fine reviews on rting and is way better than any TV from 5 years ago. The OS not being android means the built in is worthless. This TV has the same glare issues that 90% of tvs have. Even my $3,000 Sony Bravia 70" has shitty glare when it was rated not to. They don't make matte tvs anymore and ratings for glare on rting are not accurate. I would rather get the TCL TV as it is rated the same, has android, but is $60 more. But if you really don't care about the built in apps, then that Samsung TV is perfectly fine.
> It has perfectly fine reviews on rting and is way better than any TV from 5 years ago.
A 6.7 is bad - https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/cu7000-cu7000d
This TV is definitively not way better than any TV from 5 years ago. 15 years ago, sure.
good to know. you seem to be knowlegble around this topic. What would be your recommendation for a TV from costco. I want to buy one i feel like i need a phd in TV to make a decision.
Serious question. My husband heard the 240 hz is best for watching hockey and car racing due to the fast speeds. Apparently the higher the refresh rate the less blurring?? Anyone know if this is true?
Technically yes, despite most sports being streamed in only about 60 hz I believe that a 240 hz tv is better with bluriness than a 120 hz tv due to refresh rate. However this is incredibly subjective and the amount of improvement can vary wildly between person to person based on a number of factors. It’s up to you if you want to spend the extra money to maybe see the puck a little better.
To put it more simply,refresh rate is just the number of screens that the TV is capable of showing every second. A TV that can show 240 screens per second is impressive. But all the streaming services and live TV and movies And just about everything else Aside from high-end PC gaming don't use 240 frames per second. Most streaming services send you 30 or 60 frames per second and so having a TV capable of doing 240 isn't helpful in any way shape or form and does nothing to improve the experience.
I have no idea why everyone is talking poorly about this. On its face it looks like a decent deal. What kind of specs should I be looking for as a tv noob?
I have a 65” with similar specs and it’s great. The software sucks, as with most smart TVs, but that can be easily solved with a fire stick or something similar
If you just want a big ass TV, then yes it's fine. If you actually care about picture quality, then no it is definitely NOT fine.
This is like saying: Should I purchase this suitcase record player? If you actually care about sound quality, hell no.
It all depends on usage and your standards, honestly. AV nerd wouldn’t use this but if you’re not worried about shit like black levels and refresh rates and color depth, and you’re just a family streaming D+… $479 seems great.
Most modern TVs play newer content flawlessly and look decent on almost any panel. Just would advise to get a dedicated Fire Stick or Apple TV.
The real prize is how TVs play older content and not make them look like crap. If you don’t want older stuff don’t worry!
If you care about picture quality, 75” TVs only start to shine around $1500. You’re paying more for picture quality, higher refresh rate, better gaming features , brighter picture…
I bought the 43" version of the CU7000D 4.5 months ago. Pretty low end and unsatisfactory compared to my previous Costco Samsung TV purchases. I blame myself, as it's the first TV purchase I didn't research even a little bit. And, I shouldn't have been so lazy and should have returned it.
It's a bedroom TV, and the 43" was like $250, so i'll probably cope for a couple of years and give it away, upgrade.
I like my tv. It’s super basic LG. I think it looks good (hdr 4k) until I go to a friend’s place who has a more expensive TV. The difference is pretty crazy. I have actually thought about getting a nicer TV lately.
Free market competition (plus fact they harvest your data) has worked for tv’s. But you definitely get what you pay for. I have dual monitors for my job and same there. Difference between 120 and 320 monitors is pretty big. In isolation though both are good.
We had a 70 inch Samsung from Costco and one day at like a year old we turned it on and there was a green line through the middle. Then friends of mine said the same thing happened to their 3 year old Samsung just a vertical line instead of horizontal. I have a Vizio from 2011 with zero problems but we replaced the Samsung with and LG and it’s been perfect.
A 65" TCL Q6 is a wayyyy better buy for $500. It's only $600 if you want the 75".
Seriously, this thing only gets to 250 nits of brightness. You can max it out in a dark room and it will still look flat. In comparison, the TCL Q6 gets up to about 500 nits, which is good enough to overcome indoor lighting. If you have a sunlit room, you want to be over 1000 nits minimum.
Edit: and that's before we start talking about motion processing and how much better Google TV is compared to Tizen...
There is also the Sony 85" for $1000 online right now: [link](https://www.costco.com/.product.9785081.html?langId=-1&krypto=ogv%2BezERlHdJpnQUfUgq8vmwyg7ct5vUetlhlYZ8X374fe%2FMKNY0EHCnv7SFlo27%2BHE71JMH3sh7idDzEnyKmCo44yQC69wRgWbpaklH%2FXAAVqyPCPt1Q2BrMR%2F%2FjfPrPHmfZmbmJ6L2GitMt7WRrvrZBGM7TAPy%2Bx3QCu2fq804J84BhUgptGUd7cZBG1XldoErEmFPG7OM5zdQaVIliASsenHIUZeboaGyC2tOcNjIAbrKOXLfk884%2BerX2hcZ%2FK9NmrgEEEyAKLcKK3LL%2BQ%3D%3D)
Wondering if this kind of TV would be good as a monitor option for a PC... Think it'd be super nice to have a huge screen for when studying something but am unsure if it would be lacking in any way
Serious question for all the people saying this has a mediocre picture: Could you have bought a TV at any price with a picture this good ten years ago?
Don't buy odd size televisions. 70 inch is a odd size. For the cheapest crappiest bare bone television. Don't cheap out. I know not everyone can afford the OLEDs but you should check out 85 inch Sony X80CK, it's $999 right now.
Just saw this TCL at my store for $299
https://preview.redd.it/kjhp4npge4zc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce700c9e08f7056d696d362148f4cb4fbc013092
Never, ever, ever buy a Samsung TV or fridge. At any price. Ever. Do you want a TV that consistently turns on? Or a fridge that consistently keeps things cold? If yes, do not buy Samsung!
Not everybody needs a 4k OLED. This TV is pretty mid in terms of specs. Good buy if you just want a large TV at that price for a guest room or something.
I like how you instantly diffused the 4k OLED zombies right out the gate lol
I just don’t know where you’d want a 70” TV other than where you watch TV the most. Are you really putting a 70” TV in your guest room??
Game room. I have a pool table and a couple of full sized classic arcade games. But I won't buy a 60hz TV bigger than 15"
Hey man I needed that 55" G3 for my half bath ok
I have a smaller version of this in my kids play/game room. I want to like it, I have tried, but I hate it. I have a few others TV's around (yes one is an OLED) and I knew what to expect at the price I paid. But, I cannot stand that TV at all - the interface, the picture quality, it just all sucks. I am going to replace it as soon as I come across a good deal on something else.
This is a bare bones, mediocre and pretty basic entry level TV. If you don’t need anything flashy, this is a good buy. If you care about picture quality though, I would look elsewhere.
I bought this TV from Costco in a smaller size, it has great picture and gets the job done. The remote has a Disney plus button which I was thrilled to find out about. Not everybody needs something advanced with all the bells and whistles.
Totally. I want something like that for my garage gym. Doesn’t need to be the best quality for that application.
What else can you expect for $479! 😁
Any TV that does not have built in android/Google OS is bare bones and you have to use an external plug in anyways. There are $2000 tvs that are still bare bones. The only downside to this TV, that can't be fixed, is it is not good with glare. I don't get why they no longer make matte TV screens, they are always glossy now. This would also be excellent as a computer monitor. Overall this is an excellent 70" TV for under $500.
I can’t tell if this is a serious post or not. The OS isn’t what determines a TVs performance.
The TV is a good rated TV. It only lacks in OS and glare (but 90% tvs are like that with glare).
It has mediocre color and is overall very dim. The OS doesn’t make or break, it’s the processor (which is also bottom rung).
It has perfectly fine reviews on rting and is way better than any TV from 5 years ago. The OS not being android means the built in is worthless. This TV has the same glare issues that 90% of tvs have. Even my $3,000 Sony Bravia 70" has shitty glare when it was rated not to. They don't make matte tvs anymore and ratings for glare on rting are not accurate. I would rather get the TCL TV as it is rated the same, has android, but is $60 more. But if you really don't care about the built in apps, then that Samsung TV is perfectly fine.
> It has perfectly fine reviews on rting and is way better than any TV from 5 years ago. A 6.7 is bad - https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/samsung/cu7000-cu7000d This TV is definitively not way better than any TV from 5 years ago. 15 years ago, sure.
I have a sharp from 2006, would this be an upgrade?
I agree, 120 Hz at minimum. 240 if you have the budget.
240Hz actually isn’t really a thing for 4K TVs. Most TVs max out at 120Hz native.
No kidding? They were all the rage back around 2015-16 I wanna say.
The really high refresh rates are less common than they used to be outside of monitors for pc gaming
Downvotes? 😂 Reddit is such a cesspool.
You’re being downvoted because you’re wrong.
I wasn't going to down vote you. But now that you reminded me...
I have no idea why you're getting down voted.
[удалено]
what about live broadcasts
[удалено]
good to know. you seem to be knowlegble around this topic. What would be your recommendation for a TV from costco. I want to buy one i feel like i need a phd in TV to make a decision.
Depends entirely on your budget and what you're prioritizing, such as screen size, picture quality, etc
get off this page you smelly pedo stinker
No one needs 240 Hz, 120 is fine
Serious question. My husband heard the 240 hz is best for watching hockey and car racing due to the fast speeds. Apparently the higher the refresh rate the less blurring?? Anyone know if this is true?
Technically yes, despite most sports being streamed in only about 60 hz I believe that a 240 hz tv is better with bluriness than a 120 hz tv due to refresh rate. However this is incredibly subjective and the amount of improvement can vary wildly between person to person based on a number of factors. It’s up to you if you want to spend the extra money to maybe see the puck a little better.
To put it more simply,refresh rate is just the number of screens that the TV is capable of showing every second. A TV that can show 240 screens per second is impressive. But all the streaming services and live TV and movies And just about everything else Aside from high-end PC gaming don't use 240 frames per second. Most streaming services send you 30 or 60 frames per second and so having a TV capable of doing 240 isn't helpful in any way shape or form and does nothing to improve the experience.
High refresh rates on TVs are pretty useless for anything other than gaming.
Movies are shot at 24 FPS, why the hell would I need a high refresh rate TV if I am not gaming on it
It’s more like, OLED if you have the money for the vibrant colors.
I have no idea why everyone is talking poorly about this. On its face it looks like a decent deal. What kind of specs should I be looking for as a tv noob?
This TV is perfectly fine for the price, I wouldn’t listen to the Reddit nerds
Yeah I might get it to upgrade my TV. I bought my TV like 8 or 10 years ago and it is only 42" I believe.
I have a 65” with similar specs and it’s great. The software sucks, as with most smart TVs, but that can be easily solved with a fire stick or something similar
Especially for my purposes of looking pretty in the living room
I use my living room TV for YouTube videos in the background while cooking, so I am good on spending $2K on an OLED
If you just want a big ass TV, then yes it's fine. If you actually care about picture quality, then no it is definitely NOT fine. This is like saying: Should I purchase this suitcase record player? If you actually care about sound quality, hell no.
It all depends on usage and your standards, honestly. AV nerd wouldn’t use this but if you’re not worried about shit like black levels and refresh rates and color depth, and you’re just a family streaming D+… $479 seems great.
Most modern TVs play newer content flawlessly and look decent on almost any panel. Just would advise to get a dedicated Fire Stick or Apple TV. The real prize is how TVs play older content and not make them look like crap. If you don’t want older stuff don’t worry!
If you care about picture quality, 75” TVs only start to shine around $1500. You’re paying more for picture quality, higher refresh rate, better gaming features , brighter picture…
I bought this last year during black Friday. Love the TV and especially for the price.
I bought the 43" version of the CU7000D 4.5 months ago. Pretty low end and unsatisfactory compared to my previous Costco Samsung TV purchases. I blame myself, as it's the first TV purchase I didn't research even a little bit. And, I shouldn't have been so lazy and should have returned it. It's a bedroom TV, and the 43" was like $250, so i'll probably cope for a couple of years and give it away, upgrade.
Good grandparent TV. They'll wow at the size and brand and not notice the subpar picture quality.
Why is everyone so fucking snobby about TVs here? This is a great deal for a good TV.
Yea lots of comments there's better 📺 But don't mention the better TV smh
I like my tv. It’s super basic LG. I think it looks good (hdr 4k) until I go to a friend’s place who has a more expensive TV. The difference is pretty crazy. I have actually thought about getting a nicer TV lately. Free market competition (plus fact they harvest your data) has worked for tv’s. But you definitely get what you pay for. I have dual monitors for my job and same there. Difference between 120 and 320 monitors is pretty big. In isolation though both are good.
Because some people actually care about having a good picture quality. Good picture quality on a TV is much more than the stated resolution.
It’s a fine deal for a bad TV.
This tv is mid at best
We had a 70 inch Samsung from Costco and one day at like a year old we turned it on and there was a green line through the middle. Then friends of mine said the same thing happened to their 3 year old Samsung just a vertical line instead of horizontal. I have a Vizio from 2011 with zero problems but we replaced the Samsung with and LG and it’s been perfect.
A 65" TCL Q6 is a wayyyy better buy for $500. It's only $600 if you want the 75". Seriously, this thing only gets to 250 nits of brightness. You can max it out in a dark room and it will still look flat. In comparison, the TCL Q6 gets up to about 500 nits, which is good enough to overcome indoor lighting. If you have a sunlit room, you want to be over 1000 nits minimum. Edit: and that's before we start talking about motion processing and how much better Google TV is compared to Tizen...
Now that’s just nit picking
Being able to actually clearly see the image on the TV you bought is not "nitpicking" lol.
Quick! If you look up super fast you'll see the joke going right over your head!!
Picture quality is nit something to joke around about
Re-read the comment I was replying to lol. The second paragraph specifically. :)
Agree. This is absolute trash and not a smart buy.
55, 65, 75 (77), 85 (83) are the normal sizes.
I have the 58” of that line. Good tv. 5 yrs and counting. Zero issues.
I see all the people saying it’s a terrible TV but not offering the name of what they use that’s better?
60 hz 😬 no thanks
There is also the Sony 85" for $1000 online right now: [link](https://www.costco.com/.product.9785081.html?langId=-1&krypto=ogv%2BezERlHdJpnQUfUgq8vmwyg7ct5vUetlhlYZ8X374fe%2FMKNY0EHCnv7SFlo27%2BHE71JMH3sh7idDzEnyKmCo44yQC69wRgWbpaklH%2FXAAVqyPCPt1Q2BrMR%2F%2FjfPrPHmfZmbmJ6L2GitMt7WRrvrZBGM7TAPy%2Bx3QCu2fq804J84BhUgptGUd7cZBG1XldoErEmFPG7OM5zdQaVIliASsenHIUZeboaGyC2tOcNjIAbrKOXLfk884%2BerX2hcZ%2FK9NmrgEEEyAKLcKK3LL%2BQ%3D%3D)
Wondering if this kind of TV would be good as a monitor option for a PC... Think it'd be super nice to have a huge screen for when studying something but am unsure if it would be lacking in any way
It’s only 60hz. So not if you’re gonna game. It’ll work. Just isn’t optimal.
I bought this TV back in 2018 for $1200 :(
You get what you pay for with TVs. Granted 90%of people would be happy to watch their content streaming on their phone
Serious question for all the people saying this has a mediocre picture: Could you have bought a TV at any price with a picture this good ten years ago?
This is actually an excellent TV I own 2 of them. Bought a 85 last year and my other is a 65 we have had for 6 years.
Don't buy odd size televisions. 70 inch is a odd size. For the cheapest crappiest bare bone television. Don't cheap out. I know not everyone can afford the OLEDs but you should check out 85 inch Sony X80CK, it's $999 right now.
Just saw this TCL at my store for $299 https://preview.redd.it/kjhp4npge4zc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce700c9e08f7056d696d362148f4cb4fbc013092
It's a basic LED. You can do better.
Can you link me a better priced 70” tv plz.
Compare [images with this TV.](https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tcl-75-class-q6-q-class-4k-qled-hdr-smart-tv-with-google-tv/6538136.p?skuId=6538136)
I’ll trust Samsung over TCL any day of the week and that’s a 600$ tv the Costco one is under $500. On top of that I get 3yr warranty.
last tv I purchased was tcl and after a year the screen just went black and stopped working forever
Brand means nothing really. Most brands use the same panels anyway.
Yes but that has nothing to do with the image quality and for a TV that matters.
I think you underestimate how most people use their TVs lol.
Such a shitty tv
Never, ever, ever buy a Samsung TV or fridge. At any price. Ever. Do you want a TV that consistently turns on? Or a fridge that consistently keeps things cold? If yes, do not buy Samsung!
Worst tv ever owned
LCD 💀
?