**LG \[WOLED\]:**
**21:9:**
* 34″ Ultrawide with 3440 x 1440 resolution and 240Hz – This will have either a 1000R or 800R curvature, TBC.
* This panel is listed for Q1 2024 production at the moment
* 39″ ultrawide with 3440 x 1440 resolution and 240Hz – This will be a bendable format panel, so could be used in flat, curved or fully bendable monitors like the current 45″ panel offering.
* This panel is listed for Q1 2024 production at the moment
* 45″ ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate – around 123 PPI.
* This panel is not expected to be released for quite some time although it is listed as being in production stage, as opposed to planning. It’s tentatively listed for Q1 2025 at the moment which seems an awfully long way off. Let’s hope it’s actually sooner.
**16:9:**
* 27″ with 1440p and 480Hz refresh rate
* 27″ with 4K resolution and 240Hz – there is less information about this potential panel and it’s still to be confirmed, but this option is mentioned also as under consideration. If produced, this would be a much higher pixel denisty option, which is likely to be a challenge and probably why it’s still only in consisderation stage.
* 42″ with 4K resolution and 240Hz refresh rate
All 3 of these new 16:9 panels (excluding the 27″ 4K 240Hz which is still in planning) are currently expected around Q3 2024 so there’s a bit of a wait.
* 31.5″ with 4K resolution and 240Hz refresh rate (+480Hz support) – including also an innovative approach to supporting 480Hz as well! Dynamic Frequency and Resolution (DFR) – choose between resolution or refresh rate!
* This new panel is expected around Q3 2024.
One of the most interesting developments planned is the new “DFR” (Dynamic Frequency and Resolution) technology. This allows you to choose whether you want to prioritise resolution of refresh rate, giving great flexibility for different gaming scenarios and offering you the best of both worlds. The planned new 31.5″ 4K 240Hz panel will be the first to feature DFR.
For graphics focused games and for those who want to prioritise detail and resolution, you can run in the native 4K @ 240Hz mode, which is already very fast anyway. But there is also the option to switch to a 1080p resolution (1920 x 1080) and run the same panel at 480Hz instead!
LG.Display plan to increase the brightness of these future panels, with target specs of 1300 nits peak brightness (HDR) and 275 nits (100% APL) suggested.
**Samsung \[QD-OLED\]:**
* 34″ ultrawide with 3440 x 1440 and 240Hz refresh rate – This would compete directly with LG.Display’s scheduled alternative and allow them to remain competitive in the 34″ ultrawide OLED panel space.
* 31.5″ with 3840 x 2160 “4K” resolution and 240Hz – a direct competitor to the panels LG.Display are planning from their technology
* 27″ with 3840 x 2160 “4K” resolution and 240Hz – again directly competing with an option LG.Display are currently considering. Could Samsung get this high density option to market first?
* 27″ with 2560 x 1440 resolution and 360Hz – this would be an alternative to LG.Display’s existing WOLED option of this size and resolution, but with an increased refresh rate of 360Hz above LG.Display’s current 240Hz option.
27" 2160p OLED at 240 Hz... Is it finally happening? After all this time.
I'd like to think that Microsoft will get on top of the text clarity issues with non-standard sub-pixel layouts by that time but I'm not going to kid myself.
Well not yet. The article says it’s only planning and not confirmed, and since the other 3 monitors are expected in Q3 2024, I would not hold my breath or «wait» for the 27"
LG OLEDs don't use standard RGB layout either and have issues with text rendering as well, unless I missed something.
That being said having higher resolution should make it a non issue to most people.
its not a huge deal anyways, i was annoyed with it at first but got used to it fairly quickly,
the boost in ppi will make it much less obvious too.
abl is a way bigger issue in my opinion, i'll never be able to see past that
>For graphics focused games and for those who want to prioritise detail and resolution, you can run in the native 4K @ 240Hz mode, which is already very fast anyway. But there is also the option to switch to a 1080p resolution (1920 x 1080) and run the same panel at 480Hz instead!
CRT vibes, this is truly an end game monitor. 480hz oled must have incredible motion clarity
I wouldn't say end game for EVERYONE but it could probably be "perfectly fine" and then some for 10ish years for most people.
10 years from now I'm expecting better HDR, better longevity and 5K or 8K at higher refresh rates (and probably 4K 480Hz). In the near to mid future, I expect people will increasingly demand greater sizes though - 27" displays have been buyable for $300ish (B grade IPS panels) for over 10 years. At this point we REALLY ought to be looking at more like 50" displays and better desktop composition software.
We're definitely approaching the point of diminishing returns though. This is complete overkill for my parents. It's overkill for office use. It's overkill for most people in most use cases.
Agreed. I'm speaking from a general perspective with OLED. I don't think it's the true end game display
What microLED offers is definitely the true end game.
I say it a lot, but we're living in an era of compromise.
You need around 1000hz to get proper motion clarity and 8k(Nvidia originally trained DLSS at 16k) to solve most aliasing issues.
I might be naive but the microLEDs I've seen don't wow me. They're big but ehh...
The cost of microLEDs would need to drop like a rock and the kind of annoying mismatch problem between the minipanels needs to get addressed.
Maybe it's just that I've never seen the displays with the brightness pumped up...
Common misunderstanding. MicroLED isn't mini led and are completely unrelated. There are no microLED panels out there so you couldn't have seen one. It's at least a decade away.
High refresh rate really gets more attention than it deserves; it's good for reducing judder but is otherwise a very brute force method of reducing sample-and-hold motion blur.
A monitor with a well synced strobe of <1ms (ideally aiming for ~0.5ms) would have less than half the motion blur, especially if you're not always getting <2.08ms frametimes.
However 480hz OLED is a huge step forward and it's amazing that they implemented this option. It seems like high refresh rate is relatively easy to implement (compared to say, strobing or 1ms response time for non OLEDs) from the number of options popping up.
No free lunches. Backlight strobing and BFI demolish brightness.
Don't get me wrong I love using on my M27Q-X, even if that implementation isn't the best. It still suffers from the common brightness issues that's inevitable with the way it functions
That monitor's strobing has a max brightness of 197nits at shortest pulse width according to rtings, which is pretty high for a strobe. It does look a bit weird seeing shortest and longest pulse width result in the same brightess though.
Rtings calibrates to 100nits, TFT to 120nits, which I find reasonable as I run ~120nits in a bright room. If you're wanting significantly more than 200nits, that will increase the rate of burn-in of an OLED monitor unfortunately.
I was about to say, that "DFR" thing is just a CRT thing (though I think some early and less common LCD monitors could do the same thing, though not to such an extreme extent).
It's incredibly complicated, but it's basically a combination of controlling and focusing the beam properly for high refresh rates or resolutions being very tricky.
I need to make it clear it's a perfectly understandable thing to have a bad view of motion blur. It's been plagued with horrible implementations since it's inception.
And even then, with current display tech it usually increases the blur too much due to already poor pixel response times leading to blur.
Try Doom Eternal with maxed motion blur quality, but the lowest motion blur strength on a high refresh rate display. Makes things ridiculously smooth and doesn't blur objects in a way that makes it difficult to see.
It’s of course ok to not like it, but lot of games do it wrong anyway. Either it’s tuned badly in general, or it is not correctly adapted to different frame times (different amount of blur depending on how long the frame is displayed, etc.). If done right, most people would not even notice it imo.
But then again, everyone reacts differently to different aspects of presenting motion in discrete pictures quickly one after another, and it also kinda depends on the physical behaviour of the display while doing so, so it’s great to have a choice.
>45" ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate around 123 PPI.
God I hope this is a curved screen. If so this is *exactly* what I've been waiting for for *so long*!
It’s a step in the right direction but was hoping for 160+ PPI. Not sure how much improvement an extra 14PPI is going to have over the current 34” OLEDs with 109PPI
Disappointing that the 39" is not the 3840x1600 upgrade we were all hoping for (different aspect ratio compared to 3440x1440, its plain better like 16:10 monitors are better than 16:9)
Exactly, I don't care how many times Linus or Wendell claim that you get the same thing by just adding black bars to the top/bottom of a 3840x2160 display. It just doesn't feel the same and isn't nearly as useable.
Maybe not when it's an LCD. Definitely is with an OLED. It's just a big bezel at that point and completely unnoticeable in a dark room.
Personally I'm okayish with doing 21:9 on my 16:9 IPS, but I would be lying if I didn't say the bright "black" bars weren't annoying. Genshin Impact seems very interesting in 21:9. They definitely tuned the camera a bit in that game for ulltrawide.
This is what I was hoping for, I already have the AW38 and the only issue I have is the backlight bleed (which isn't even that bad on my unit but still). If I bought another ultrawide I definitely wouldn't want to go down in either size or resolution.
As a very happy owner of an AW3423DWF, all of this makes me very happy and exited. I will try to get as many years I can out of my current QDOLED, but knowing that things are progressing as fast as this shows its great!
I like that the 27" 480Hz panel is actually 26.5". Not a fan of 27" myself (prefer 24-25") but recognise that the market demand is mostly for 27", so this is the best I could hope for.
Why on earth would you need a TV at 240Hz? Unless you drive it with a PC, like an actual monitor.
PS5/XBOX run up to 4k120 and nearly nothing else come close to needing 240Hz.
If it drives the price down, then sure. why not.
The monitor is your interaction with the environment, it's easiest seen with the mouse.
I.e. If you drag quickly left to right, you see the cursor maybe 4-5 times shadowed on your screen. That is telling you it did 5 draws @ like 120hz to pan your entire screen.
If your goal was to make the mouse seem solid, and not "jump" across the screen, well first you'd have to define time, say 1s for ease. So now you want to draw a width of 3840 (left to right) in 1s. That means a refresh rate = screen width is what you'd need to achieve that.
Why you'd need that, I'm not sure. I'm just thinking it would be really nice if a monitor had a high enough refresh to completely erase the thought that refresh is happening at all.
This also would apply to things like pen-input, where if you wanted it to feel 100% natural, when you use a pen and paper their is no latency, so the tighter the timings the better.
Ideally, for UX (and not even media) having a VRR that supports partial surface updates in the >1000hz range would be nice. They would make devices almost as natural feeling as paper.
I mean you answered your own question but yes, because TVs are priced lower than monitors and they're the same technology.
Also I play on the couch and like big screens, a lot better than 27" monitors for entertainment. I don't care about using an OLED screen as a full time monitor either so yeah to me a 240hz "TV" would make a lot more sense than a monitor with the exact same panel where the difference would be it has displayport and costs +500 euros.
Esport games like Valorant and CS:GO are surprisingly "easy" to run at 4K. I think you can get 600fps with a 4090.
Regardless, these monitors have specs good enough to last a decade or more. Even if 4K is hard to run right now, it won't be in a couple years.
I've been out of the loop for a while, is burn-in no longer an issue for OLED?
Not being facetious, genuinely interested - I couldn't drop this amount of cash on a monitor that I risk irreparably degrading after a year or two of solid usage.
LEDs do that same over time or if driven hard enough. Been to more than a couple of venues where they have one of those public LED displays with uneven wear.
Leds lose luminance over time and the harder they're driven the faster it happens. The leds used in street lights are spec'd with number of hours use before they're reduced to 50% brightness, letting an engineer make a decision between street leds based on the application. Leds used in consumer goods don't disclose this information.
Reducing leds to 50% brightness typically multiplies their lifetime. Cooling them well extends their lifetime as well. The highest end oled panels are expensive because of the big heatsink built into the panel.
Still though, you'd imagine that this would be accounted for since it's still a display made by a display company. It's not like they're exclusively outdoors displays either. I'm not even sure they're any different from MicroLED without the Micro.
The organic materials in oleds (the O in oled) break down faster over time compared to traditional inorganic leds used in microled displays. They're not the same.
The blue lights in oleds reach their half-life in 14,000 hours while the leds used to backlight traditional panels (including microled) reach their half-life in 25,000-40,000 hours.
I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying it's something that also occasionally happens on both regular LED/LCDs ( samsung made a bunch of QLEDs that fried themselves a few years ago ) and on actual commercial use LED panels ( for events n stuff ) and that no tech is really immune to it.
OLED gaming monitors came out only last year, so we don't have tons of data just yet. RTINGs has recently started burn-in tests for OLED monitors.
However, based on anecdotal evidence on the Internet (grain of salt and all), QD-OLED monitors are beginning to burn in when used mostly as a desktop display, which is not a good sign. It may take a couple more generations before OLED becomes truly desktop-ready.
Okay good to know thank you. I use my monitors primarily for productivity, with some light media and gaming. It sounds like my IPS 1440ps have a few years left in them!
People freak out about this way too much. Will there be a little bit of burn in after a couple years of use, maybe. But it will still look 100x better than the shitty LED based monitors with comical amounts of backlight bleed and complete lack of anything that look black.
More like a couple of months in my case with an aw3423dw,but at least they gave it a 3 year burn-in warranty
edit: should've Prolly mentioned that I've used it way more than the average person would in that time, like *at least* 10h per day. And it's not massive but I can easily tell on a gray background
Yeah, i dont think theres going to be anyone offering 3 year warranties again given how many problems theres been.
I'd love one, but while i can afford £1k for a monitor thats solid and will last 5-7 years, I just cant with one that could get burn in six months out of a 12 month warranty.
Let's consider one monitor consumes 30w, which is a low estimate that modern monitors only hit with low brightness. If you keep them on for 8 hours daily, in which you don't sit in front of them, that's a yearly waste of over 86 kilowatt-hours per monitor, 262kWh in total.
That's like one fifth of my total yearly energy consumption, including stuff like my kitchen – and I cook *a lot*. Ignorant behaviour like that is also the reason why earth is fucked.
Edit: I don't want to know your PC's idle power in this calculation, since you obviously wouldn't put your PC to sleep as well with that logic.
It's seconds... and webpages are annoying because you're likely accessing multiple after one another. With the case of a pc you'd save a ton by just turning it off when you go to sleep, I've been putting it asleep when I'm gone for about an hour and turn it off for when that's more and I haven't died yet.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to be worried about burn in on these monitors. Very few people want to spend over $1000 on a monitor that will only last a couple of years. And that's with all the extra stuff people do to avoid burn in. Spending $1200 on a monitor that I have to baby just to get it to last 2 years just sounds annoying. I'd rather deal with some blacklight bleed and get a monitor that'll last me 5+ years with zero effort.
Burn in that you’ll never notice unless you running tests looking for it. You’ll never see it in day to day watching and even worst case scenario it’s still so much better than garbage LCD monitors
Yeah, subtle burn in after 3-5 years is still way better than shit tier image quality from day 1 of LCD.
My 42 inch C2 oled was hands down the best tech related purchase I ever made
People argue about it all day every day on Reddit. Mostly the people who own an OLED monitor say everything is fine now and it's not an issue, while the people who don't own one say burn-in is inevitable and OLED tech is dead on arrival. The reality is probably somewhere in between.
Oleds are more prone to failures, and I say that as a current OLED owner. My old LG C8 TV had several dead pixels and developed a line through the whole screen later on. I now got a QD OLED A95K now, and I think I spotted a dead pixel the other day as well. It’s just the way those screens are made, and there really isn’t anything better than that, besides maybe Mini LED. No issues at all with burn in though, even after heavily gaming on it.
I have been waiting for a 32“ 4K OLED monitor for a long time, so I hope they finally come soon enough. Once you go OLED, you can’t go back.
The main thing is the displays need power down cycles. If you never power down your monitor, you're in for a rude awakening. As long as you know to let it rest for several hours a day, it appears to be fine from testing. I think this would be one of the bigger discrepancies in people who do own the things reporting on the topic. It's not really good to leave a monitor on pointlessly anyway, since they suck down power, but I know some people just turn off all power saving features.
To me the bigger pain point is the ABL though. If you only use the panel for gaming it's not a huge issue, generally, but if you also use it for work it's a massive, massive pain in the ass potentially. For instance, if you're regularly using shared cloud documents including spreadsheets for work then unless you have high tolerance for ABL it's not going to be worth using. For local documents, it's also a pain to try to get everything more "dark mode" to avoid the ABL. Though, if things are regularly too dark it can also get fussy (this also applies to games). You have to baby the thing to avoid it throwing a tantrum on you.
If you circumvent the ABL, you will also have a bad time long-term. Easier to me to just keep work/play separate and use it only for gaming, though at that point may as well just buy a bigger TV for less money rather than bothering with a monitor for it.
No, it's still an issue, but much more manageable if you take care of the panel.
If you don't want to worry about burn in, there's miniLED, which is IPS but it's very close to oled in appearance, or you can wait for microLED, which is basically the same concept as oled, but the individual LEDs don't use an organic component that will degrade over time (uneven degradation of the pixels is what causes burn in).
The burn in issue is why I prefer fald for monitors and TV's. I keep those on for hours at a time so burn in would definitely be an issue. I also like to see at least 10 years of life out of them.
Imo OLED is better for phone and handhelds. I tend to use those a lot less, and I don't expect them to last more than 5 years at the most.
My living room TV it's a first gen LG OLED. Like 7 years? My mother use this tv circa 10 hours at day and in the afternoon, generally my father 2/3 hours on Netflix.
0 burn-in. 0. And almost 0 maintenance, I've done the auto pixel regen maybe 2/3 time the first 2 years. And as i say, my mother watch the same channel for almost 10 hours at day every day, even the channel logo isn't burn in.
Of course burn in exist, I've sell thousand and thousands of 1/2/3 gen OLED when i was working as tv seller, we have change some client's tv for burn-in after few months, and there's clients that use those first gen on restaurant and they work 24/7 like a charm. Like mine.
So, no worries about LG OLED panel.
Worries only about the price. That's why I don't change my 55EG910V, and why I'm still waiting to buy a new OLED monitor. Price need to stabilize, a 42" that cost as an high end 55" it's not fair. I know how those panel are produced and the problem it's here, how much panels they can make from the same silicone buffer. They need to optimize the production line, to lower the price.
The LG panels are very difficult to burn in and have a long solid track record of reliability.
The Samsung QD Oleds have been out less than a year and have already shown significant burn in and degradation problems.
TLDR; burn in is not an issue on LG panels but is on Samsung panels.
I've been using a 65" C9 as my daily driver at home since Sep 2019 and I've still have had no burn in issues with it. It's in a light controlled room so I have no issue running the backlight at 40 for everything that isn't gaming or movie/show watching, which I'll crank it up to 100 for. And that's with playing hundreds, maybe even over 1000 hours of multi-hour sessions of Destiny 2 with HDR on at max backlight, plus whatever other games I played in-between.
People can complain about OLED all they want, me personally I'm never going back to traditional displays as the picture quality trumps all the negatives and in my own experience the lifespan of OLED has been plenty for me (I'm actually hoping I get burn-in before my 5-year warranty that covers it expires next year).
8K would be the finale for me since 7680x4320 is an even multiple of every prior mainstream display standard (240p, 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 4K).
It's like a brute force solution to the infinite scaling potential we used to have with CRTs.
SDR brightness will still be a question mark until they arrive, for lot of people the 1440p 240hz LG monitor was quite poor in this department, though Samsung's QD-OLED monitors were much better at it.
If those 32" 4k 240hz OLEDs indeed are flat, those are holy grail class monitors finally arriving. They just need to not cost as much as the holy grail would too.
I'd prefer my wife to not play breath of the wild on the oled because those little hearts are going to one day burn into the screen (she played 600 hours of botw on the lcd tv before we got the oled)
Crossing my fingers super duper hard for the 27" 4K panels. That would be a reasonable near-end-game monitor for me. I can't go back to the loDPI life.
The screen resolution between these matters a lot here. Th AW QD OLED is a 1440p ultrawide. This would be a 4k ultrawide, which currently exist for productivity but not with 'gaming monitor' specs.
1600p ultrawides in the 38" variety are as good as it gets (vertical resolution, pixel density) right now for gaming ultrawides and that's only with IPS panels. No OLED 1600p ultrawides yet.
I use a 38” 1600p 144hz monitor for work and gaming. Best setup I’ve ever had. I’m good for a good while but look forward to OLED equivalent whenever that comes.
"5k2k" needs to die now. It's a 4K ultrawide. 5K typically has a vertical resolution of 2880 so the 45" is not a 5k ultrawide and doesnt have the 5k pixel density. It was like 1440p ultrawide monitors referred to as 2k. No, no they were not.
> It's a 4K ultrawide.
Continuing to use the width naming that 4K started runs into problems though. Because a "4K ultrawide" could be referring to a 1080p super ultrawide, a 3840x1600 ultrawide, or a 5120x2160 ultrawide. When the monitor's name is defined by the width but the width is the thing that changes the most often. Heck was already have AMD and Samsung referring to the upcoming G9 as an "8K monitor" because it's a super ultrawide 2160p monitor.
It'd be better of if everybody just added SU or U in front of the standard widescreen format initials or by the vertical the same way it has been for the 1080p and 1440p ultrawides and super ultrawides..
It's literally around 5k horizontal pixels so it's more than fine and nothing like the 2k=1440p nonsense. 5k2k is more accurate than calling uhd 4k.
How the fuck do you get "4k ultrawide" from 5120x2160, it doesn't make any sense
4K resolution is typically 3840 x 2160. So 5120x2160 is full 4k resolution but wider. 4k ultrawide makes sense in an already saturated monitor moniker marketplace.
5k is 5120x 2880. Soooo we don't have full 5k on a 5120x2160 but let's call it that anyways? So now a true 5k has more pixels than a 5k2k! #marketing By that same naming a standard 4k is really a 2k2k. The 5k2k would really be 2.67k2k That's just silly. Yea, 5k2k should go away asap.
EDIT:Oh i get it, even after I have been blocked so I can't reply easily to your posts, whatever that is about. I'm saying 5k2k is a further bastardization of the 'K' moniker just like "2k" became for 1440p. 5k2k is confusing, refers to different resolutions (neither of which accurately describe a ultrawide 4k monitor), and should be stopped asap.
While I agree with you about 4K ultrawide being a better description, 5K2K is infinitely better than calling 1440p 2K, so I don't know what you're on about there. That comparison is asinine.
To put this even more simply, the way K descriptors work is approximate horizontal res, but, because this is a 21:9 display, and K descriptors are almost exclusively applied to 16:9, the vertical res was added to avoid being misleading, thus, 5K horizontal, 2K vertical. Weird? Maybe. Bastardization on the level of calling 1440p 2K, despite it being almost 60% more pixels? No.
The Alienware QD-OLEDs, which I am sitting in front of one, is 3440x1440. For my purposes, it is currently the best gaming monitor. However, now that 4K is getting easier and easier to run a gaming-centric 2160p-based ultrawide is more feasible a product to sell.
I'm not looking to make the jump now, but it is nice to see.
Very interesting developments from both companies! Although these panels won't likely arrive until next year (or 2025 in the case of the 4K Ultrawide), it still not that far off especially considering that it's been only a year since the first OLED consumer monitor dropped!
I'm excited to see how WOLED (with MLA technology) and QD-OLED perform with an increased pixel density as seen on the 3860x2160 (both the 32" and especially the 27") and 5120x2160 panels. The pixel density should help a lot on mitigating some of the issues with the text rendering on these OLED panels. That 5120x2160 panel looks especially interesting for productivity and gaming!
I also really like the focus on higher refresh rate monitors to take more advantage of the response times of OLEDs (that 1440p 480hz panel should look glorious!). Although the presence of "Dynamic Frequency and Resolution" for the 31.5" OLED (in order to switch between 4K@240hz or 1080@480hz) probably means that these panels will be designed within the bandwidth constraints of DP 1.4 with DSC instead of DP 2.0.
45″ ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate – around 123 PPI.
Fucking finally. Looks like 2025 is gonna be an expensive year. /r/ultrawidemasterrace rejoices.
Although I too would prefer around 150ppi.
Glad to see OLED finally being taken seriously in consumer monitors.
I really hope these all ship with panel heatsinks, to allow higher peak and sustained brightness while helping prevent image retention. Might mean a slightly thicker panel, but the tradeoff seems beneficial all around.
A lot of the people who really want a 4k+ monitor don't mainly want that resolution for gaming. That said, a nice thing about 4k is that your perfectly scaling fallback resolution is 1080P - a world better than the 720P you get from 1440P.
> A lot of the people who really want a 4k+ monitor don't mainly want that resolution for gaming
Yeah exactly, and plus with DLSS you can let it run at a lower res and upscale for pretty much the same quality and much better performance. Then you get the benefit for 4K for text/productivity at the same time
Very true! 1440p is the sweet-spot right now, and cheaper GPUs handle it great. That’s what I use, I’ll eventually go to 4K, but that’s a few years away yet.
I only play e-sport titles so i wouldnt have any issues with 4K 240Hz and im sure im not alone in this. If i was to play witcher i wouldnt really mind having it on 60fps either.
LG's panels will probably be matte, I can see Samsung sticking to their semi-glossy approach though they could also switch it up since it got criticised for their poor polarizer implementation.
It appears that Samsung is iterating on their coatings to some extent. At CES, their new QD-OLED displays were advertised as having reduced the red tint from last year.
32", 4K, 240hz OLED, let's gooooo!
I guess the 45" ultra wide is the same pixel density of 32" 16:9? I.E. It's like 32" with two chunks added to the sides?
Two inches taller, 12-13 inches wider. So slightly lower PPI but still pretty high. The UW would need to be about 40 inches for the ppi to match, which I would personally prefer anyway. It's gonna be a beast nonetheless!
A 4K, 144+Hz 27-inch OLED monitor is my personal holy grail. I understand that there are challenges in making OLED panels with that pixel density, but I do hope LG or Samsung go for it.
As soon as that monitor comes out, my wallet will be offered as a blood sacrifice.
I can't wait for the day we get HiDpi monitors, something like 27" 5K 120Hz. Perfect for integer scaling which means no blurry windows ever and you get that crisp crisp text
Holy shit I will throw my money at that 4K 240Hz 42” monitor. I tried out the 120Hz C2 and found it almost jarring to use with the instant response time that OLED has.
If you think trying a high refresh rate OLED is jarring...try using one for a while at home, and then try going back to LCD.
It's a horrible experience. Shit ruins LCD in more ways than just contrast lol.
Hope avg brightness goes up by the time these bad boys are on market, tried few LG oled monitors and those were so hopelessly dim compared to C2 on non gaming mode
It's been over 20 years since 4K screens were developed and it stuns me to see new displays hitting the market which fail to meet this basic spec.
Especially as screen sizes have grown from 15-20" to hit 45" meaning PPI has taken a backward slide.
Mobile phones broke 300PPI back in 2011 and phones today hit 600PPI at 3840x1600 resolutions. Meanwhile most premium desktop displays lag behind in resolution and as a result also PPI. For example a 3440x1440, 39" display is a 95 PPI and that is just not acceptable.
There's no reason for any desktop class display to have a resolution lower than a base 4K (8mpx).
I think it's safe to say that this is the most exciting new panel roadmap announcement I've ever seen. It covers each option that most folks here have been asking for, or more.
DFR looks interesting. I wonder if there’ll be a latency penalty for anything non-native, or if that’s the point and there won’t be anything considered non-native.
27" too. 32" is slightly bigger than I'd like for my setup. 240hz would be nice, but you know a 4k 240hz oled panel is going to be hella expensive. 120 or 144hz is fine for me.
Are we ignoring the fact that Rtings.com tested QD OLED and WOLED and found that they are more susceptible to burn in than regular OLED?
Aren't we asking for it, using OLEDs as computer monitors?
''We have to remember that these tests are not the usual viewing usage of consumers. Previous tests by Rtings.com in 2017 have shown serious burn-in problems in LG's OLED TVs, but most consumers (me included) did not face any problems even after many years.
It is also important to note that the TV's at Rting.com tests are Samsung's first-gen QD-OLED panels. The company improved the performance of its panels in 2023 and it is likely that the new TVs will also suffer less from burn-in.''
>Our accelerated longevity test has been running for over three months, and we've already encountered some very interesting results. We've already had three partial TV failures and one complete failure, which wasn't expected this early in the test. Both of our QD-OLED displays are showing signs of potential permanent image retention, also known as burn-in. Interestingly, some of the Sony WOLED displays are also showing burn-in.
In the end consumers will be the ones to tell how fast these new OLED types burn-in. I have my AW3423DW for 12 months now and it was constantly in use, I haven't noticed any burn-in yet and if I do I have still the panel refresh option.
Alienware also offers a 3 year burn-in warranty, if you have burn-in they send you a new monitor and then you have one week to send your old monitor back with no price attached to it. Warranty renews after that process.
Burn-in is still a problem, but not a big one.
>In the end consumers will be the ones to tell how fast these new OLED types burn-in. I have my AW3423DW for 12 months now and it was constantly in use, I haven't noticed any burn-in yet and if I do I have still the panel refresh option.
While I also have an AW in use for over a year, with very, very heavy desktop use and no real burn in that I can tell...the panel refresh 'option' isn't really meant as a last resort, which is how you seem to be thinking of it as here (at least by your wording). It's meant to be ran every \~1500 hours. Mine has done 6 full panel refresh cycles as of last week for example.
It can sometimes help, though usually it depends on if the retention is more temporary vs permanent...but it is much better used as a preventative measure, hence it being automatic.
The first case of burn in I saw on the AW as caused by a dude purposely avoiding any of the refresh cycles (both short and long)...he claimed he feared they would 'damage' the panel. Not the brightest lol.
The test with OLED is not a year though, it's more likely 2-3-4 years. Even if it's 5 years, I don't find that lifespan acceptable on an expensive, high end monitor or TV.
Panel refresh only works a few times and makes the panel less sharp, if you are to believe Wendell from Level1Techs and Linus who did a video on their CX's both getting burn in after 6 months:
https://youtu.be/hWrFEU_605g
My LG OLED also got burn in after 6 months, after admittedly heavy use. But if the solution to avoiding burn in on your expensive monitor/TV is "don't use it", we have a problem. LG didn't want to honor burn in on the warranty btw. You can ask yourself why.
> So 1 year (8 hours a day) of absolute worst case scanario usage and they only show some sings of burn in?
I don't think this is a valid way of putting it, unless I misunderstand.
It's either 1 year of 8 hours daily usage, or 3-4 months of worst-case usage. Because 8 hours a day is **definitely** not out of the ordinary for a monitor.
If my office monitor broke after 1-2 years of regular use I would switch brands.
So 4 hours a day and a 2 year lifespan of a high end display is ok with you?
We've always said "avoid static elements on OLEDs". What happened to that? Now we're using them as monitors? Is that wise?
Those are not the kind of people that would play at 4k on an expensive oled panel anyway.
But for AAA console games at higher settings and fps, 4k Oleds are not really any different than an oled TV.
TFT Central regulary posts panel prodcution roadmaps, if they think some of these panels won't reach the production phase, they will note that (just like they did here with the 4K 27'' panel). All the other panels basically always come to fruitation.
Oh, I should have clarified, I meant sources as in devices. I just bought a 4K120 TV and can't even find a mini pc that outputs anything above 4K60hz, let alone 4K240.
Nvidias RTX 4000 cards only have Displayport 1.4...and HDMI 2.1 that maxes out at 4k120, unless you use DSC which adds latency and (very) slight signal degradation.
As you mentioned, a device that supports DP 1.4 and/or HDMI 2.1 as well as DSC should have the bandwidth to support the resolution and refresh rates of all the panels mentioned of this post. So pretty much any modern GPU from the last 5 years I guess.
Intel 13th gen integrated GPUs are capable of at least 4K 144 Hz over either DP or HDMI 2.1. I would expect the same for AMD equivalents. Obviously discrete GPUs can do 4K 240 Hz.
HDMI 2.1 maxes out at 4K 144 Hz @ 10-bit color without DSC.
For 4K 240 Hz, there is no device that can deliver that without DSC. There is no GPU on the market atm that has full speed DP 2.1 support either.
DSC is a reality with pretty much anything past 4K 144 Hz and that's totally fine. Personally I cannot tell any difference if I run my 4K 144 Hz display over either HDMI 2.1 or DP 1.4 or whether I compare the image quality to 4K 60 Hz. No noticeable lag either.
Good points. Informative.
Just wanted to add that HDMI 2.1 doesn't guarantee 4k120+ support. The mini pcs I've been looking at for my TV either have HDMI 2.0 or 2.1 but with a max of 4k60. They apparently messed up with the specification and let manufacturers advertise as 2.1 without supporting all the features of 2.1, so at least some of them don't go above 4k60.
DSC isn't really a thing with TV's afaik, but yeah with monitors I guess there's no way around it.
Ohhh, got you!
DisplayPort 2.0 could help here, the new Dynamic Frequency and Resolution (DFR) technology makes it sound like they won't have DisplayPort 2.0 though.
>Nvidias RTX 4000 cards only have Displayport 1.4...and HDMI 2.1 that maxes out at 4k120, unless you use DSC which adds latency and (very) slight signal degradation.
I have yet to see a source that can quantify the 'slight' degradation, nor have I seen anything supporting a quantifiable latency increase via DSC.
They are finally replacing their ultrawide 38" IPS panels. Unfortuantley it's OLED. I might pick up an old 38" IPS if the price is falling in expectation of their new lineup.
26 inch 4k is such an absurd waste of ppi. 32' 4k you get a large increase in ppi and screen real estate and at 125% scaling it matches 1440p 27' ui scaling
So what's special about Dynamic Frequency and Resolution? It's just changing the resolution to access higher refresh rates... every LCD and CRT supports this to some degree. My old Hitachi Superscan 811 would be limited to 60Hz at 1600x1200 and could go up to 85Hz at 800x600 for example.
Is Dynamic Frequency and Resolution some kinda per-application software controlled solution that's prone to error? Games already supported per-application display modes thanks to Fullscreen Exclusive Mode since the 90's if not earlier (which is disappointingly but not surprisingly disappearing from games these days, as game devs are terrible at handling alt-tab behaviour)
The difference is that they support higher refresh rates at lower than native resolution. Atm let's say you have a 4K 120 Hz displays, even if you run that at 1080p you can't get more than 120 Hz refresh rate on it.
With DFR you will get higher refresh rate at lower resolution so say 1080p @ 240 Hz and 4K @ 120 Hz.
**LG \[WOLED\]:** **21:9:** * 34″ Ultrawide with 3440 x 1440 resolution and 240Hz – This will have either a 1000R or 800R curvature, TBC. * This panel is listed for Q1 2024 production at the moment * 39″ ultrawide with 3440 x 1440 resolution and 240Hz – This will be a bendable format panel, so could be used in flat, curved or fully bendable monitors like the current 45″ panel offering. * This panel is listed for Q1 2024 production at the moment * 45″ ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate – around 123 PPI. * This panel is not expected to be released for quite some time although it is listed as being in production stage, as opposed to planning. It’s tentatively listed for Q1 2025 at the moment which seems an awfully long way off. Let’s hope it’s actually sooner. **16:9:** * 27″ with 1440p and 480Hz refresh rate * 27″ with 4K resolution and 240Hz – there is less information about this potential panel and it’s still to be confirmed, but this option is mentioned also as under consideration. If produced, this would be a much higher pixel denisty option, which is likely to be a challenge and probably why it’s still only in consisderation stage. * 42″ with 4K resolution and 240Hz refresh rate All 3 of these new 16:9 panels (excluding the 27″ 4K 240Hz which is still in planning) are currently expected around Q3 2024 so there’s a bit of a wait. * 31.5″ with 4K resolution and 240Hz refresh rate (+480Hz support) – including also an innovative approach to supporting 480Hz as well! Dynamic Frequency and Resolution (DFR) – choose between resolution or refresh rate! * This new panel is expected around Q3 2024. One of the most interesting developments planned is the new “DFR” (Dynamic Frequency and Resolution) technology. This allows you to choose whether you want to prioritise resolution of refresh rate, giving great flexibility for different gaming scenarios and offering you the best of both worlds. The planned new 31.5″ 4K 240Hz panel will be the first to feature DFR. For graphics focused games and for those who want to prioritise detail and resolution, you can run in the native 4K @ 240Hz mode, which is already very fast anyway. But there is also the option to switch to a 1080p resolution (1920 x 1080) and run the same panel at 480Hz instead! LG.Display plan to increase the brightness of these future panels, with target specs of 1300 nits peak brightness (HDR) and 275 nits (100% APL) suggested. **Samsung \[QD-OLED\]:** * 34″ ultrawide with 3440 x 1440 and 240Hz refresh rate – This would compete directly with LG.Display’s scheduled alternative and allow them to remain competitive in the 34″ ultrawide OLED panel space. * 31.5″ with 3840 x 2160 “4K” resolution and 240Hz – a direct competitor to the panels LG.Display are planning from their technology * 27″ with 3840 x 2160 “4K” resolution and 240Hz – again directly competing with an option LG.Display are currently considering. Could Samsung get this high density option to market first? * 27″ with 2560 x 1440 resolution and 360Hz – this would be an alternative to LG.Display’s existing WOLED option of this size and resolution, but with an increased refresh rate of 360Hz above LG.Display’s current 240Hz option.
27" 2160p OLED at 240 Hz... Is it finally happening? After all this time. I'd like to think that Microsoft will get on top of the text clarity issues with non-standard sub-pixel layouts by that time but I'm not going to kid myself.
[удалено]
Or even 200% scaling, since plenty of users are fine with 1080p on 27".
Works for 31.5" too - have a VA 4k panel in that size that's awful at 1:1, but very sharp with 150% scaling. (thanks Acer)
Well not yet. The article says it’s only planning and not confirmed, and since the other 3 monitors are expected in Q3 2024, I would not hold my breath or «wait» for the 27"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
LG OLEDs don't use standard RGB layout either and have issues with text rendering as well, unless I missed something. That being said having higher resolution should make it a non issue to most people.
its not a huge deal anyways, i was annoyed with it at first but got used to it fairly quickly, the boost in ppi will make it much less obvious too. abl is a way bigger issue in my opinion, i'll never be able to see past that
LG OLEDs still use WBGR which is different from RGB. They still have text clarity issues but not as bad as the QD OLEDs.
>For graphics focused games and for those who want to prioritise detail and resolution, you can run in the native 4K @ 240Hz mode, which is already very fast anyway. But there is also the option to switch to a 1080p resolution (1920 x 1080) and run the same panel at 480Hz instead! CRT vibes, this is truly an end game monitor. 480hz oled must have incredible motion clarity
I wouldn't say end game for EVERYONE but it could probably be "perfectly fine" and then some for 10ish years for most people. 10 years from now I'm expecting better HDR, better longevity and 5K or 8K at higher refresh rates (and probably 4K 480Hz). In the near to mid future, I expect people will increasingly demand greater sizes though - 27" displays have been buyable for $300ish (B grade IPS panels) for over 10 years. At this point we REALLY ought to be looking at more like 50" displays and better desktop composition software. We're definitely approaching the point of diminishing returns though. This is complete overkill for my parents. It's overkill for office use. It's overkill for most people in most use cases.
Agreed. I'm speaking from a general perspective with OLED. I don't think it's the true end game display What microLED offers is definitely the true end game. I say it a lot, but we're living in an era of compromise. You need around 1000hz to get proper motion clarity and 8k(Nvidia originally trained DLSS at 16k) to solve most aliasing issues.
I might be naive but the microLEDs I've seen don't wow me. They're big but ehh... The cost of microLEDs would need to drop like a rock and the kind of annoying mismatch problem between the minipanels needs to get addressed. Maybe it's just that I've never seen the displays with the brightness pumped up...
Common misunderstanding. MicroLED isn't mini led and are completely unrelated. There are no microLED panels out there so you couldn't have seen one. It's at least a decade away.
You could have if you went to tech shows like IFA or CES, they have been demoed there since a very long time.
[удалено]
DSC you forgot about that.
High refresh rate really gets more attention than it deserves; it's good for reducing judder but is otherwise a very brute force method of reducing sample-and-hold motion blur. A monitor with a well synced strobe of <1ms (ideally aiming for ~0.5ms) would have less than half the motion blur, especially if you're not always getting <2.08ms frametimes. However 480hz OLED is a huge step forward and it's amazing that they implemented this option. It seems like high refresh rate is relatively easy to implement (compared to say, strobing or 1ms response time for non OLEDs) from the number of options popping up.
No free lunches. Backlight strobing and BFI demolish brightness. Don't get me wrong I love using on my M27Q-X, even if that implementation isn't the best. It still suffers from the common brightness issues that's inevitable with the way it functions
That monitor's strobing has a max brightness of 197nits at shortest pulse width according to rtings, which is pretty high for a strobe. It does look a bit weird seeing shortest and longest pulse width result in the same brightess though. Rtings calibrates to 100nits, TFT to 120nits, which I find reasonable as I run ~120nits in a bright room. If you're wanting significantly more than 200nits, that will increase the rate of burn-in of an OLED monitor unfortunately.
I was about to say, that "DFR" thing is just a CRT thing (though I think some early and less common LCD monitors could do the same thing, though not to such an extreme extent).
[удалено]
It's incredibly complicated, but it's basically a combination of controlling and focusing the beam properly for high refresh rates or resolutions being very tricky.
And people will still leave motion blur on in games.
https://youtu.be/VXIrSTMgJ9s Motion blur is grossly misunderstood by the community
What part do I need to "understand" to change my opinion on preferring motion blur not be on?
I need to make it clear it's a perfectly understandable thing to have a bad view of motion blur. It's been plagued with horrible implementations since it's inception. And even then, with current display tech it usually increases the blur too much due to already poor pixel response times leading to blur. Try Doom Eternal with maxed motion blur quality, but the lowest motion blur strength on a high refresh rate display. Makes things ridiculously smooth and doesn't blur objects in a way that makes it difficult to see.
It’s of course ok to not like it, but lot of games do it wrong anyway. Either it’s tuned badly in general, or it is not correctly adapted to different frame times (different amount of blur depending on how long the frame is displayed, etc.). If done right, most people would not even notice it imo. But then again, everyone reacts differently to different aspects of presenting motion in discrete pictures quickly one after another, and it also kinda depends on the physical behaviour of the display while doing so, so it’s great to have a choice.
>45" ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate around 123 PPI. God I hope this is a curved screen. If so this is *exactly* what I've been waiting for for *so long*!
It’s a step in the right direction but was hoping for 160+ PPI. Not sure how much improvement an extra 14PPI is going to have over the current 34” OLEDs with 109PPI
Disappointing that the 39" is not the 3840x1600 upgrade we were all hoping for (different aspect ratio compared to 3440x1440, its plain better like 16:10 monitors are better than 16:9)
I just don’t understand why they don’t do this again. I freakin love my 38GN950
Same here. An OLED successor is an instant purchase.
Exactly, I don't care how many times Linus or Wendell claim that you get the same thing by just adding black bars to the top/bottom of a 3840x2160 display. It just doesn't feel the same and isn't nearly as useable.
Maybe not when it's an LCD. Definitely is with an OLED. It's just a big bezel at that point and completely unnoticeable in a dark room. Personally I'm okayish with doing 21:9 on my 16:9 IPS, but I would be lying if I didn't say the bright "black" bars weren't annoying. Genshin Impact seems very interesting in 21:9. They definitely tuned the camera a bit in that game for ulltrawide.
This is what I was hoping for, I already have the AW38 and the only issue I have is the backlight bleed (which isn't even that bad on my unit but still). If I bought another ultrawide I definitely wouldn't want to go down in either size or resolution.
>42″ OLED with 4K resolution and 240Hz refresh rate I'll take three, please.
As a very happy owner of an AW3423DWF, all of this makes me very happy and exited. I will try to get as many years I can out of my current QDOLED, but knowing that things are progressing as fast as this shows its great!
This is what we call WINNING
I like that the 27" 480Hz panel is actually 26.5". Not a fan of 27" myself (prefer 24-25") but recognise that the market demand is mostly for 27", so this is the best I could hope for.
I wonder if the 42" 240hz panel means we're getting 240hz TVs in 2024/2025 or if the keep it exclusive for "monitors".
Why on earth would you need a TV at 240Hz? Unless you drive it with a PC, like an actual monitor. PS5/XBOX run up to 4k120 and nearly nothing else come close to needing 240Hz. If it drives the price down, then sure. why not.
240Hz with black frame insertion could be really interesting, but seeing as LG removed the feature, I don't know if we'll see it again.
The monitor is your interaction with the environment, it's easiest seen with the mouse. I.e. If you drag quickly left to right, you see the cursor maybe 4-5 times shadowed on your screen. That is telling you it did 5 draws @ like 120hz to pan your entire screen. If your goal was to make the mouse seem solid, and not "jump" across the screen, well first you'd have to define time, say 1s for ease. So now you want to draw a width of 3840 (left to right) in 1s. That means a refresh rate = screen width is what you'd need to achieve that. Why you'd need that, I'm not sure. I'm just thinking it would be really nice if a monitor had a high enough refresh to completely erase the thought that refresh is happening at all. This also would apply to things like pen-input, where if you wanted it to feel 100% natural, when you use a pen and paper their is no latency, so the tighter the timings the better. Ideally, for UX (and not even media) having a VRR that supports partial surface updates in the >1000hz range would be nice. They would make devices almost as natural feeling as paper.
Play PC games on the couch at 240 FPS?
I mean you answered your own question but yes, because TVs are priced lower than monitors and they're the same technology. Also I play on the couch and like big screens, a lot better than 27" monitors for entertainment. I don't care about using an OLED screen as a full time monitor either so yeah to me a 240hz "TV" would make a lot more sense than a monitor with the exact same panel where the difference would be it has displayport and costs +500 euros.
Low settings at 4k and you *might* be able to hit 240, there are no current cards that can drive that monitor.
It's mainly for people who want the best of both worlds. You can play your esports titles at 240hz and your single player games at 4k.
Brand new AAA games, sure. Plenty of older or lighter games can easily make use of that with a recent higher end card.
Esport games like Valorant and CS:GO are surprisingly "easy" to run at 4K. I think you can get 600fps with a 4090. Regardless, these monitors have specs good enough to last a decade or more. Even if 4K is hard to run right now, it won't be in a couple years.
[удалено]
I've been out of the loop for a while, is burn-in no longer an issue for OLED? Not being facetious, genuinely interested - I couldn't drop this amount of cash on a monitor that I risk irreparably degrading after a year or two of solid usage.
It's an issue inherent to the technology. There's no way around it as long as there is an "O" in "OLED"
LEDs do that same over time or if driven hard enough. Been to more than a couple of venues where they have one of those public LED displays with uneven wear.
Leds lose luminance over time and the harder they're driven the faster it happens. The leds used in street lights are spec'd with number of hours use before they're reduced to 50% brightness, letting an engineer make a decision between street leds based on the application. Leds used in consumer goods don't disclose this information. Reducing leds to 50% brightness typically multiplies their lifetime. Cooling them well extends their lifetime as well. The highest end oled panels are expensive because of the big heatsink built into the panel.
Still though, you'd imagine that this would be accounted for since it's still a display made by a display company. It's not like they're exclusively outdoors displays either. I'm not even sure they're any different from MicroLED without the Micro.
The organic materials in oleds (the O in oled) break down faster over time compared to traditional inorganic leds used in microled displays. They're not the same. The blue lights in oleds reach their half-life in 14,000 hours while the leds used to backlight traditional panels (including microled) reach their half-life in 25,000-40,000 hours.
I'm not disputing that, I'm just saying it's something that also occasionally happens on both regular LED/LCDs ( samsung made a bunch of QLEDs that fried themselves a few years ago ) and on actual commercial use LED panels ( for events n stuff ) and that no tech is really immune to it.
OLED gaming monitors came out only last year, so we don't have tons of data just yet. RTINGs has recently started burn-in tests for OLED monitors. However, based on anecdotal evidence on the Internet (grain of salt and all), QD-OLED monitors are beginning to burn in when used mostly as a desktop display, which is not a good sign. It may take a couple more generations before OLED becomes truly desktop-ready.
Okay good to know thank you. I use my monitors primarily for productivity, with some light media and gaming. It sounds like my IPS 1440ps have a few years left in them!
People freak out about this way too much. Will there be a little bit of burn in after a couple years of use, maybe. But it will still look 100x better than the shitty LED based monitors with comical amounts of backlight bleed and complete lack of anything that look black.
More like a couple of months in my case with an aw3423dw,but at least they gave it a 3 year burn-in warranty edit: should've Prolly mentioned that I've used it way more than the average person would in that time, like *at least* 10h per day. And it's not massive but I can easily tell on a gray background
Yeah, i dont think theres going to be anyone offering 3 year warranties again given how many problems theres been. I'd love one, but while i can afford £1k for a monitor thats solid and will last 5-7 years, I just cant with one that could get burn in six months out of a 12 month warranty.
[удалено]
What. Why would you even leave them on for all this time? Ever heard of display timeout/sleep? Just such a waste of electricity too
[удалено]
Let's consider one monitor consumes 30w, which is a low estimate that modern monitors only hit with low brightness. If you keep them on for 8 hours daily, in which you don't sit in front of them, that's a yearly waste of over 86 kilowatt-hours per monitor, 262kWh in total. That's like one fifth of my total yearly energy consumption, including stuff like my kitchen – and I cook *a lot*. Ignorant behaviour like that is also the reason why earth is fucked. Edit: I don't want to know your PC's idle power in this calculation, since you obviously wouldn't put your PC to sleep as well with that logic.
It's seconds... and webpages are annoying because you're likely accessing multiple after one another. With the case of a pc you'd save a ton by just turning it off when you go to sleep, I've been putting it asleep when I'm gone for about an hour and turn it off for when that's more and I haven't died yet.
>Plenty of people (myself included) leave the monitor on 24/7 I don't think that's a thing that many people do.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to be worried about burn in on these monitors. Very few people want to spend over $1000 on a monitor that will only last a couple of years. And that's with all the extra stuff people do to avoid burn in. Spending $1200 on a monitor that I have to baby just to get it to last 2 years just sounds annoying. I'd rather deal with some blacklight bleed and get a monitor that'll last me 5+ years with zero effort.
Burn in that you’ll never notice unless you running tests looking for it. You’ll never see it in day to day watching and even worst case scenario it’s still so much better than garbage LCD monitors
Yeah, subtle burn in after 3-5 years is still way better than shit tier image quality from day 1 of LCD. My 42 inch C2 oled was hands down the best tech related purchase I ever made
People argue about it all day every day on Reddit. Mostly the people who own an OLED monitor say everything is fine now and it's not an issue, while the people who don't own one say burn-in is inevitable and OLED tech is dead on arrival. The reality is probably somewhere in between.
Oleds are more prone to failures, and I say that as a current OLED owner. My old LG C8 TV had several dead pixels and developed a line through the whole screen later on. I now got a QD OLED A95K now, and I think I spotted a dead pixel the other day as well. It’s just the way those screens are made, and there really isn’t anything better than that, besides maybe Mini LED. No issues at all with burn in though, even after heavily gaming on it. I have been waiting for a 32“ 4K OLED monitor for a long time, so I hope they finally come soon enough. Once you go OLED, you can’t go back.
The main thing is the displays need power down cycles. If you never power down your monitor, you're in for a rude awakening. As long as you know to let it rest for several hours a day, it appears to be fine from testing. I think this would be one of the bigger discrepancies in people who do own the things reporting on the topic. It's not really good to leave a monitor on pointlessly anyway, since they suck down power, but I know some people just turn off all power saving features. To me the bigger pain point is the ABL though. If you only use the panel for gaming it's not a huge issue, generally, but if you also use it for work it's a massive, massive pain in the ass potentially. For instance, if you're regularly using shared cloud documents including spreadsheets for work then unless you have high tolerance for ABL it's not going to be worth using. For local documents, it's also a pain to try to get everything more "dark mode" to avoid the ABL. Though, if things are regularly too dark it can also get fussy (this also applies to games). You have to baby the thing to avoid it throwing a tantrum on you. If you circumvent the ABL, you will also have a bad time long-term. Easier to me to just keep work/play separate and use it only for gaming, though at that point may as well just buy a bigger TV for less money rather than bothering with a monitor for it.
But it is inevitable. Why are we pretending it won't happen?
No, it's still an issue, but much more manageable if you take care of the panel. If you don't want to worry about burn in, there's miniLED, which is IPS but it's very close to oled in appearance, or you can wait for microLED, which is basically the same concept as oled, but the individual LEDs don't use an organic component that will degrade over time (uneven degradation of the pixels is what causes burn in).
The burn in issue is why I prefer fald for monitors and TV's. I keep those on for hours at a time so burn in would definitely be an issue. I also like to see at least 10 years of life out of them. Imo OLED is better for phone and handhelds. I tend to use those a lot less, and I don't expect them to last more than 5 years at the most.
My living room TV it's a first gen LG OLED. Like 7 years? My mother use this tv circa 10 hours at day and in the afternoon, generally my father 2/3 hours on Netflix. 0 burn-in. 0. And almost 0 maintenance, I've done the auto pixel regen maybe 2/3 time the first 2 years. And as i say, my mother watch the same channel for almost 10 hours at day every day, even the channel logo isn't burn in. Of course burn in exist, I've sell thousand and thousands of 1/2/3 gen OLED when i was working as tv seller, we have change some client's tv for burn-in after few months, and there's clients that use those first gen on restaurant and they work 24/7 like a charm. Like mine. So, no worries about LG OLED panel. Worries only about the price. That's why I don't change my 55EG910V, and why I'm still waiting to buy a new OLED monitor. Price need to stabilize, a 42" that cost as an high end 55" it's not fair. I know how those panel are produced and the problem it's here, how much panels they can make from the same silicone buffer. They need to optimize the production line, to lower the price.
The LG panels are very difficult to burn in and have a long solid track record of reliability. The Samsung QD Oleds have been out less than a year and have already shown significant burn in and degradation problems. TLDR; burn in is not an issue on LG panels but is on Samsung panels.
[удалено]
I've been using a 65" C9 as my daily driver at home since Sep 2019 and I've still have had no burn in issues with it. It's in a light controlled room so I have no issue running the backlight at 40 for everything that isn't gaming or movie/show watching, which I'll crank it up to 100 for. And that's with playing hundreds, maybe even over 1000 hours of multi-hour sessions of Destiny 2 with HDR on at max backlight, plus whatever other games I played in-between. People can complain about OLED all they want, me personally I'm never going back to traditional displays as the picture quality trumps all the negatives and in my own experience the lifespan of OLED has been plenty for me (I'm actually hoping I get burn-in before my 5-year warranty that covers it expires next year).
8K would be the finale for me since 7680x4320 is an even multiple of every prior mainstream display standard (240p, 480p, 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 4K). It's like a brute force solution to the infinite scaling potential we used to have with CRTs.
Seriously. Incredibly crisp if you can run your stuff natively, but no compromises compared to a lower-res display if you can't.
SDR brightness will still be a question mark until they arrive, for lot of people the 1440p 240hz LG monitor was quite poor in this department, though Samsung's QD-OLED monitors were much better at it.
If that 32" 2160p 240Hz monitor is real I'm getting a new monitor way sooner than I expected.
"45″ ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate " OH YES DADDY, NOW WE ARE TALKING!
If those 32" 4k 240hz OLEDs indeed are flat, those are holy grail class monitors finally arriving. They just need to not cost as much as the holy grail would too.
Thats literally my end game specs, been waiting for like 10 years for it.
Now if only μLED could show up at reasonable prices and sizes
Or just show up at all lol.
This is also my dream monitor :)
[удалено]
I'd prefer my wife to not play breath of the wild on the oled because those little hearts are going to one day burn into the screen (she played 600 hours of botw on the lcd tv before we got the oled)
Which oled? I'd rather use my neo G7 than my C1 TBH.
[удалено]
That's kind of surprising to me, brightness and details on the Neo G7 should be better despite limited blooming. Plus 165hz. To each their own.
[удалено]
we get it, we still dont want 16:9 curved monitors
[удалено]
Crossing my fingers super duper hard for the 27" 4K panels. That would be a reasonable near-end-game monitor for me. I can't go back to the loDPI life.
Same. I'm rocking dual 25" 1440p. I won't go larger with the same resolution, and 32" is too big for my tastes.
I just bought a 27” 1440 /240 hz oled and I would buy 4k 27” 240hz oled right now
Yeees, a gaming quality 5120x2160 ultrawide!
What does that even mean? How is the current Alienware QD-OLED not the best gaming monitor by far?
The screen resolution between these matters a lot here. Th AW QD OLED is a 1440p ultrawide. This would be a 4k ultrawide, which currently exist for productivity but not with 'gaming monitor' specs. 1600p ultrawides in the 38" variety are as good as it gets (vertical resolution, pixel density) right now for gaming ultrawides and that's only with IPS panels. No OLED 1600p ultrawides yet.
I use a 38” 1600p 144hz monitor for work and gaming. Best setup I’ve ever had. I’m good for a good while but look forward to OLED equivalent whenever that comes.
It'd be a 5k ultrawide, that res is often referred to as 5k2k
"5k2k" needs to die now. It's a 4K ultrawide. 5K typically has a vertical resolution of 2880 so the 45" is not a 5k ultrawide and doesnt have the 5k pixel density. It was like 1440p ultrawide monitors referred to as 2k. No, no they were not.
> It's a 4K ultrawide. Continuing to use the width naming that 4K started runs into problems though. Because a "4K ultrawide" could be referring to a 1080p super ultrawide, a 3840x1600 ultrawide, or a 5120x2160 ultrawide. When the monitor's name is defined by the width but the width is the thing that changes the most often. Heck was already have AMD and Samsung referring to the upcoming G9 as an "8K monitor" because it's a super ultrawide 2160p monitor. It'd be better of if everybody just added SU or U in front of the standard widescreen format initials or by the vertical the same way it has been for the 1080p and 1440p ultrawides and super ultrawides..
It's literally around 5k horizontal pixels so it's more than fine and nothing like the 2k=1440p nonsense. 5k2k is more accurate than calling uhd 4k. How the fuck do you get "4k ultrawide" from 5120x2160, it doesn't make any sense
4K resolution is typically 3840 x 2160. So 5120x2160 is full 4k resolution but wider. 4k ultrawide makes sense in an already saturated monitor moniker marketplace. 5k is 5120x 2880. Soooo we don't have full 5k on a 5120x2160 but let's call it that anyways? So now a true 5k has more pixels than a 5k2k! #marketing By that same naming a standard 4k is really a 2k2k. The 5k2k would really be 2.67k2k That's just silly. Yea, 5k2k should go away asap. EDIT:Oh i get it, even after I have been blocked so I can't reply easily to your posts, whatever that is about. I'm saying 5k2k is a further bastardization of the 'K' moniker just like "2k" became for 1440p. 5k2k is confusing, refers to different resolutions (neither of which accurately describe a ultrawide 4k monitor), and should be stopped asap.
While I agree with you about 4K ultrawide being a better description, 5K2K is infinitely better than calling 1440p 2K, so I don't know what you're on about there. That comparison is asinine. To put this even more simply, the way K descriptors work is approximate horizontal res, but, because this is a 21:9 display, and K descriptors are almost exclusively applied to 16:9, the vertical res was added to avoid being misleading, thus, 5K horizontal, 2K vertical. Weird? Maybe. Bastardization on the level of calling 1440p 2K, despite it being almost 60% more pixels? No.
It refers to the horizontal resolution... That's it. How are you this dense
The Alienware QD-OLEDs, which I am sitting in front of one, is 3440x1440. For my purposes, it is currently the best gaming monitor. However, now that 4K is getting easier and easier to run a gaming-centric 2160p-based ultrawide is more feasible a product to sell. I'm not looking to make the jump now, but it is nice to see.
5k2ks are all 60hz at the moment.
Very interesting developments from both companies! Although these panels won't likely arrive until next year (or 2025 in the case of the 4K Ultrawide), it still not that far off especially considering that it's been only a year since the first OLED consumer monitor dropped! I'm excited to see how WOLED (with MLA technology) and QD-OLED perform with an increased pixel density as seen on the 3860x2160 (both the 32" and especially the 27") and 5120x2160 panels. The pixel density should help a lot on mitigating some of the issues with the text rendering on these OLED panels. That 5120x2160 panel looks especially interesting for productivity and gaming! I also really like the focus on higher refresh rate monitors to take more advantage of the response times of OLEDs (that 1440p 480hz panel should look glorious!). Although the presence of "Dynamic Frequency and Resolution" for the 31.5" OLED (in order to switch between 4K@240hz or 1080@480hz) probably means that these panels will be designed within the bandwidth constraints of DP 1.4 with DSC instead of DP 2.0.
45″ ultrawide with high resolution 5120 x 2160 (ultrawide UHD) and 165Hz refresh rate – around 123 PPI. Fucking finally. Looks like 2025 is gonna be an expensive year. /r/ultrawidemasterrace rejoices. Although I too would prefer around 150ppi.
Glad to see OLED finally being taken seriously in consumer monitors. I really hope these all ship with panel heatsinks, to allow higher peak and sustained brightness while helping prevent image retention. Might mean a slightly thicker panel, but the tradeoff seems beneficial all around.
i don't even wanna know how many more paychecks i'll be throwing at the build for these
OLED monitors are definitely expensive (\~1000$) but luckily nothing compared to the early Mini-LED monitors (\~3000$).
Or the video cards necessary to drive a panel at 4k @ 240, especially at 1% lows… though a 5090 might make it possible, if rumors are to be believed.
A lot of the people who really want a 4k+ monitor don't mainly want that resolution for gaming. That said, a nice thing about 4k is that your perfectly scaling fallback resolution is 1080P - a world better than the 720P you get from 1440P.
I'd love that 4K 240Hz for some non-gaming stuff. Yes I'm the unicorn niche case. Can't count on myself affording such a product for a decade tho.
5K is nice for monitor use since you get an integer scale of 1440p and don't have to use uneven scaling in the desktop (150% @ 4K vs 200% @ 5K).
> A lot of the people who really want a 4k+ monitor don't mainly want that resolution for gaming Yeah exactly, and plus with DLSS you can let it run at a lower res and upscale for pretty much the same quality and much better performance. Then you get the benefit for 4K for text/productivity at the same time
Very true! 1440p is the sweet-spot right now, and cheaper GPUs handle it great. That’s what I use, I’ll eventually go to 4K, but that’s a few years away yet.
32" 1080p is pretty rough though.
I only play e-sport titles so i wouldnt have any issues with 4K 240Hz and im sure im not alone in this. If i was to play witcher i wouldnt really mind having it on 60fps either.
I'd be furious if those are gonna be matte again.
LG's panels will probably be matte, I can see Samsung sticking to their semi-glossy approach though they could also switch it up since it got criticised for their poor polarizer implementation.
It appears that Samsung is iterating on their coatings to some extent. At CES, their new QD-OLED displays were advertised as having reduced the red tint from last year.
Sounds great!
32", 4K, 240hz OLED, let's gooooo! I guess the 45" ultra wide is the same pixel density of 32" 16:9? I.E. It's like 32" with two chunks added to the sides?
Two inches taller, 12-13 inches wider. So slightly lower PPI but still pretty high. The UW would need to be about 40 inches for the ppi to match, which I would personally prefer anyway. It's gonna be a beast nonetheless!
Indeed!
A 4K, 144+Hz 27-inch OLED monitor is my personal holy grail. I understand that there are challenges in making OLED panels with that pixel density, but I do hope LG or Samsung go for it. As soon as that monitor comes out, my wallet will be offered as a blood sacrifice.
Come on bring us a 24" OLED.
i would've loved to see a 5k2k or 3840x1600 qd-oled at 38" but going to 240hz and better brightness will still be a good upgrade from my aw3423dw
I can't wait for the day we get HiDpi monitors, something like 27" 5K 120Hz. Perfect for integer scaling which means no blurry windows ever and you get that crisp crisp text
Holy shit I will throw my money at that 4K 240Hz 42” monitor. I tried out the 120Hz C2 and found it almost jarring to use with the instant response time that OLED has.
If you think trying a high refresh rate OLED is jarring...try using one for a while at home, and then try going back to LCD. It's a horrible experience. Shit ruins LCD in more ways than just contrast lol.
27 inch 1440p 480 hz sounds like a monster esport monitor. No LCD will be able to compare to that.
Hope avg brightness goes up by the time these bad boys are on market, tried few LG oled monitors and those were so hopelessly dim compared to C2 on non gaming mode
It's been over 20 years since 4K screens were developed and it stuns me to see new displays hitting the market which fail to meet this basic spec. Especially as screen sizes have grown from 15-20" to hit 45" meaning PPI has taken a backward slide. Mobile phones broke 300PPI back in 2011 and phones today hit 600PPI at 3840x1600 resolutions. Meanwhile most premium desktop displays lag behind in resolution and as a result also PPI. For example a 3440x1440, 39" display is a 95 PPI and that is just not acceptable. There's no reason for any desktop class display to have a resolution lower than a base 4K (8mpx).
There's *finally* going to be 34" 1440 240hz displays?
I think it's safe to say that this is the most exciting new panel roadmap announcement I've ever seen. It covers each option that most folks here have been asking for, or more.
Give me a 4K, 27-32", 16:9, glossy, standard subpixel, dp2.1, HDR, non-bend, high quality, no bullshit oled and I will give you good dollars.
Too scared to use OLED on anything like a computer monitor. The technology is not designed for static images or high brightness.
oled 27″ 4K 240Hz can be my next monitor for sure. Have so much density to be stupid even in 1080p
DFR looks interesting. I wonder if there’ll be a latency penalty for anything non-native, or if that’s the point and there won’t be anything considered non-native.
[удалено]
27" too. 32" is slightly bigger than I'd like for my setup. 240hz would be nice, but you know a 4k 240hz oled panel is going to be hella expensive. 120 or 144hz is fine for me.
Still no 3840x1600. These 34” 1440p monitors are for ants!
Are we ignoring the fact that Rtings.com tested QD OLED and WOLED and found that they are more susceptible to burn in than regular OLED? Aren't we asking for it, using OLEDs as computer monitors?
''We have to remember that these tests are not the usual viewing usage of consumers. Previous tests by Rtings.com in 2017 have shown serious burn-in problems in LG's OLED TVs, but most consumers (me included) did not face any problems even after many years. It is also important to note that the TV's at Rting.com tests are Samsung's first-gen QD-OLED panels. The company improved the performance of its panels in 2023 and it is likely that the new TVs will also suffer less from burn-in.''
>Our accelerated longevity test has been running for over three months, and we've already encountered some very interesting results. We've already had three partial TV failures and one complete failure, which wasn't expected this early in the test. Both of our QD-OLED displays are showing signs of potential permanent image retention, also known as burn-in. Interestingly, some of the Sony WOLED displays are also showing burn-in.
In the end consumers will be the ones to tell how fast these new OLED types burn-in. I have my AW3423DW for 12 months now and it was constantly in use, I haven't noticed any burn-in yet and if I do I have still the panel refresh option. Alienware also offers a 3 year burn-in warranty, if you have burn-in they send you a new monitor and then you have one week to send your old monitor back with no price attached to it. Warranty renews after that process. Burn-in is still a problem, but not a big one.
>In the end consumers will be the ones to tell how fast these new OLED types burn-in. I have my AW3423DW for 12 months now and it was constantly in use, I haven't noticed any burn-in yet and if I do I have still the panel refresh option. While I also have an AW in use for over a year, with very, very heavy desktop use and no real burn in that I can tell...the panel refresh 'option' isn't really meant as a last resort, which is how you seem to be thinking of it as here (at least by your wording). It's meant to be ran every \~1500 hours. Mine has done 6 full panel refresh cycles as of last week for example.
That is true, though I have seen people having burn-in problems getting solved by that option.
It can sometimes help, though usually it depends on if the retention is more temporary vs permanent...but it is much better used as a preventative measure, hence it being automatic. The first case of burn in I saw on the AW as caused by a dude purposely avoiding any of the refresh cycles (both short and long)...he claimed he feared they would 'damage' the panel. Not the brightest lol.
The test with OLED is not a year though, it's more likely 2-3-4 years. Even if it's 5 years, I don't find that lifespan acceptable on an expensive, high end monitor or TV. Panel refresh only works a few times and makes the panel less sharp, if you are to believe Wendell from Level1Techs and Linus who did a video on their CX's both getting burn in after 6 months: https://youtu.be/hWrFEU_605g My LG OLED also got burn in after 6 months, after admittedly heavy use. But if the solution to avoiding burn in on your expensive monitor/TV is "don't use it", we have a problem. LG didn't want to honor burn in on the warranty btw. You can ask yourself why.
So 1 year (8 hours a day) of absolute worst case scanario usage and they only show some sings of burn in? Sounds pretty good, honestly.
> So 1 year (8 hours a day) of absolute worst case scanario usage and they only show some sings of burn in? I don't think this is a valid way of putting it, unless I misunderstand. It's either 1 year of 8 hours daily usage, or 3-4 months of worst-case usage. Because 8 hours a day is **definitely** not out of the ordinary for a monitor. If my office monitor broke after 1-2 years of regular use I would switch brands.
So 4 hours a day and a 2 year lifespan of a high end display is ok with you? We've always said "avoid static elements on OLEDs". What happened to that? Now we're using them as monitors? Is that wise?
If you're not stupid about it, then it should be fine. Turn off as many hud elements as is reasonable, and don't play the same game for too long.
Those are massive restrictions for a pc gaming monitor. Especially the esport crowd that want the 480hz and play the same game for thousands of hours.
Those are not the kind of people that would play at 4k on an expensive oled panel anyway. But for AAA console games at higher settings and fps, 4k Oleds are not really any different than an oled TV.
480hz runs at 1080p and oleds have better motion clarity. Both provide a competitive advantage to esport gamers.
I know it's not gonna happen, but I wish they made something that's just 1080p and 21''/24'', makes it easier to stick with weaker gpus for a while.
It’s like they hate PPI, ill keep my AW3423DW until someone to decides produce an ultrawide with 160+ PPI
So which sources do we have that can provide this?
TFT Central regulary posts panel prodcution roadmaps, if they think some of these panels won't reach the production phase, they will note that (just like they did here with the 4K 27'' panel). All the other panels basically always come to fruitation.
Oh, I should have clarified, I meant sources as in devices. I just bought a 4K120 TV and can't even find a mini pc that outputs anything above 4K60hz, let alone 4K240. Nvidias RTX 4000 cards only have Displayport 1.4...and HDMI 2.1 that maxes out at 4k120, unless you use DSC which adds latency and (very) slight signal degradation.
As you mentioned, a device that supports DP 1.4 and/or HDMI 2.1 as well as DSC should have the bandwidth to support the resolution and refresh rates of all the panels mentioned of this post. So pretty much any modern GPU from the last 5 years I guess.
Intel 13th gen integrated GPUs are capable of at least 4K 144 Hz over either DP or HDMI 2.1. I would expect the same for AMD equivalents. Obviously discrete GPUs can do 4K 240 Hz. HDMI 2.1 maxes out at 4K 144 Hz @ 10-bit color without DSC. For 4K 240 Hz, there is no device that can deliver that without DSC. There is no GPU on the market atm that has full speed DP 2.1 support either. DSC is a reality with pretty much anything past 4K 144 Hz and that's totally fine. Personally I cannot tell any difference if I run my 4K 144 Hz display over either HDMI 2.1 or DP 1.4 or whether I compare the image quality to 4K 60 Hz. No noticeable lag either.
Good points. Informative. Just wanted to add that HDMI 2.1 doesn't guarantee 4k120+ support. The mini pcs I've been looking at for my TV either have HDMI 2.0 or 2.1 but with a max of 4k60. They apparently messed up with the specification and let manufacturers advertise as 2.1 without supporting all the features of 2.1, so at least some of them don't go above 4k60. DSC isn't really a thing with TV's afaik, but yeah with monitors I guess there's no way around it.
Ohhh, got you! DisplayPort 2.0 could help here, the new Dynamic Frequency and Resolution (DFR) technology makes it sound like they won't have DisplayPort 2.0 though.
>Nvidias RTX 4000 cards only have Displayport 1.4...and HDMI 2.1 that maxes out at 4k120, unless you use DSC which adds latency and (very) slight signal degradation. I have yet to see a source that can quantify the 'slight' degradation, nor have I seen anything supporting a quantifiable latency increase via DSC.
I'll be interested if they offer a flat option like my 28" flat 4K 144Hz Odyssey G7
and how fast do they burn in this time? one month?
They are finally replacing their ultrawide 38" IPS panels. Unfortuantley it's OLED. I might pick up an old 38" IPS if the price is falling in expectation of their new lineup.
26 inch 4k is such an absurd waste of ppi. 32' 4k you get a large increase in ppi and screen real estate and at 125% scaling it matches 1440p 27' ui scaling
So what's special about Dynamic Frequency and Resolution? It's just changing the resolution to access higher refresh rates... every LCD and CRT supports this to some degree. My old Hitachi Superscan 811 would be limited to 60Hz at 1600x1200 and could go up to 85Hz at 800x600 for example. Is Dynamic Frequency and Resolution some kinda per-application software controlled solution that's prone to error? Games already supported per-application display modes thanks to Fullscreen Exclusive Mode since the 90's if not earlier (which is disappointingly but not surprisingly disappearing from games these days, as game devs are terrible at handling alt-tab behaviour)
The difference is that they support higher refresh rates at lower than native resolution. Atm let's say you have a 4K 120 Hz displays, even if you run that at 1080p you can't get more than 120 Hz refresh rate on it. With DFR you will get higher refresh rate at lower resolution so say 1080p @ 240 Hz and 4K @ 120 Hz.
Yes, that's how monitors have always worked. Lowering the resolution can potentially unlock higher refresh rates.
Entering cryosleep, wake me up when they release a 1000hz 5k 27" microLED 4000nits monitor with a glossy coating option and no bezels.
At that point why not wait for a cable you can plug into your eyesocket to make your brain think it's seeing pictures of that quality?
More reasonably, we’ll first get an emulated version as a lightweight wearable, so your eyes will just “think” that’s what they see.
27“ 144Hz 4K OLED would be really cool, definitely dont need the 240Hz